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

hide menu

Vandeekree    

Rank #3689 on Comments
Vandeekree Avatar Level 234 Comments: Ambassador Of Lulz
Online
Send mail to Vandeekree Block Vandeekree Invite Vandeekree to be your friend flag avatar
Last status update:
-
Personal Info
Date Signed Up:2/21/2010
Last Login:7/10/2014
Funnyjunk Career Stats
Comment Ranking:#3689
Highest Comment Rank:#1622
Comment Thumbs: 3628 total,  5414 ,  1786
Content Level Progress: 6.77% (4/59)
Level 0 Content: Untouched account → Level 1 Content: New Here
Comment Level Progress: 53% (53/100)
Level 234 Comments: Ambassador Of Lulz → Level 235 Comments: Ambassador Of Lulz
Subscribers:1
Content Views:3
Total Comments Made:1615
FJ Points:3379

latest user's comments

#28 - Yes, all of those things could happen. And if we could go back…  [+] (18 new replies) 05/09/2013 on interesting -4
User avatar #36 - RandomAnonGuy (05/09/2013) [-]
If god span the Earth at that rate it would have caused a second flood.
User avatar #40 - Vandeekree (05/09/2013) [-]
At what rate? I wasn't talking about him actually spinning it. Only meant that as a metaphor for when he first created the Earth. So I'm afraid I don't see what you're talking about.
User avatar #43 - RandomAnonGuy (05/09/2013) [-]
"God had spun the world in just the right way that exactly 4 trillion years from the moment the earth started spinning there would be a phenomenon that the Earth's gravity and molecular tension of the water aligned to cause the water to be able to hold the weight of a man right where Jesus was standing"
If the Earth was spinning fast enough for that to happen, water would be launched kilometres inland when it returned to "normal"
User avatar #50 - Vandeekree (05/09/2013) [-]
Ok, please reread what i wrote in parenthesis because you are taking my example literally. All I was saying is that it is possible God set up the dominoes so that when Jesus stepped out onto the water it would hold him. How did he do that? I haven't the foggiest. My point was simply that it could have happened in a way we don't fully understand without ever breaking a single rule of physics.
User avatar #53 - RandomAnonGuy (05/09/2013) [-]
My point is that if something extraordinary was done to make it happen, it would have an extraordinary consequence. It's actually easier to defend it if you just say it was magic rather than trying to justify it with physics.
User avatar #62 - Vandeekree (05/09/2013) [-]
Because I don't believe in magic. I think everything that happens is done so in a way that can be understood if you could see all the "parts" of what caused it. But who said it was an extraordinarily big thing? What if it was merely extraordinarily complex but also tiny? Something molecular where the stars aligned and everything fell into place to create the effect God set the dominoes that are the atoms that make us into falling into?
User avatar #64 - RandomAnonGuy (05/09/2013) [-]
You're pretty much describing water becoming solid for a few seconds, which is impossible. It kind of breaks thermodynamics.
User avatar #68 - Vandeekree (05/09/2013) [-]
Is it actually impossible though? You know for a fact that under no circumstances could something like that happen? If you could see every atom from the beginning up to now and how they interact you don't think you could formulate a way to setup the conditions for that to happen at the moment you wanted?
User avatar #74 - RandomAnonGuy (05/09/2013) [-]
Yeah. Every molecule is constantly in motion, if it hits the surface it either bounces off or escapes and turns into a gas. For it to condense on one point and bind into a crystalline form, it would need to lose energy, which means Jesus would have to be very very cold.
User avatar #76 - Vandeekree (05/09/2013) [-]
I don't think you understand how complex this world is. You seem to be way over simplifying it if you think you can just simulate all the scenarios in your head.

But let me try a simple example. Could you not see that it was possible that Jesus could have been standing on a block of ice that was submerged under the water? I don't think that's how it happened but is that out of the realm of belief?
User avatar #80 - RandomAnonGuy (05/09/2013) [-]
It isn't possible, there's too many problems with it. Unless you're talking about him standing on a glacier, we're talking about suspending gravity so that the ice could support his weight and suspending thermodynamics so that it could form.
User avatar #82 - Vandeekree (05/09/2013) [-]
And I have to ask, how do you know that? Have you seriously done enough experimentation or understand enough about not only physical laws but also every mechanism of this reality that you can tell me it's simply not possible?
#32 - anonymous (05/09/2013) [-]
some of those things i mentioned are possible, if newtons laws are wrong. So all you have to prove that this is possible.

And the universe we can observe is 46,6 lightyears "big". When looking at an objekt far away, we see it's past. We are able to observe things now, that happened shortly after the beginning. We understand how all went from milliseconds after the big bang till today. We already found earthlike planets, but they are too far away.
We go also smaller with quantum-science. We are learning how the parts of an atom are build up and sometimes in the future we all will have quantum-computers. (There are working prototypes).
However, we did not see one single proof or even hint of any god's existence. That is why science isn't interested in religion, while the scientist may be.
User avatar #34 - Vandeekree (05/09/2013) [-]
See, now that's too absolute. You don't have to prove that newton's laws are wrong. Only that they don't always hold or possibly that they can simply be bent to make it look like they are being broken when in reality everything is mathematically sound, it's just that we can't see it. Like a magic trick where something that doesn't look possible is done through a method we can't perceive.

And I must disagree. Science is interested in everything. Just because God is not tangible doesn't mean the people who "do science" aren't looking for the opportunity to get God inside a test tube. But did you think you would look through a big enough telescope and see the back of God's head as he sits in space? God is not big, he is infinite. That means if he doesn't want us to see him, we simply won't. Surely you can't tell me you believe that absence of proof equals disproof?

Yes we can see and do all of that you said, but does that change the fact religion is still as relevant as ever? yes we have high tech computers and we can pick up every bit of light that is reaching our telescope lens, but if anything, that shows just how primitive our technology is, we don't actually understand much of anything, so far, we've only started to make the rocks we make tools out of so small we impressed ourselves.

#54 - anonymous (05/09/2013) [-]
so jesus was a good illusionist?
User avatar #66 - Vandeekree (05/09/2013) [-]
No, Jesus could predict the future. God would set miracles in motion and Jesus would simply be where he needed to be when they took place. Just because the fishermen couldn't see the sub atom vortex that pushed up enough to create the lift(yes, made that up) that Jesus was standing on when he walked on water doesn't mean he was fooling them, he was still standing on the water.
#90 - anonymous (05/09/2013) [-]
you use words, but you don't know their meaning
User avatar #94 - Vandeekree (05/09/2013) [-]
Would you mind pointing out what words I don't understand?
#27 - But the ruler example is not really a fact. Facts are hard to …  [+] (14 new replies) 05/09/2013 on interesting -6
#30 - herbvk (05/09/2013) [-]
I don't think you really understand how science works...

anyway if we can't be sure of anything, and everything is relative, it applies just as well to science as to religion. And science is a lot more humane and reliable than religion, so... yeah...
User avatar #33 - Vandeekree (05/09/2013) [-]
Are you sure? Religion has remained the same from it's start with only one revision while science changes constantly! (Yes, that was an attempted joke)

But I do understand how science works. It is a compilation of current observations that we've made. But actually it doesn't apply to religion because the source of religion(the right one at least) is the all knowing God. In fact, what he shows us is the only actual fact we know. Now we can't be sure that such knowledge came from God, but we can logically find that firstly there is a right religion using the logic of moral philosophy, and secondly which one is the true one by comparing them.

As far as science being reliable, yes, it is but only for the little things. Surly you can agree that there are areas where science gets nothing short of blurry.
#48 - herbvk (05/09/2013) [-]
But actually it doesn't apply to religion because the source of religion(the right one at least) is the all knowing God. In fact, what he shows us is the only actual fact we know.

That is circular logic.
User avatar #57 - Vandeekree (05/09/2013) [-]
No, it would be circular if i said that it is true because it says it's true. I said(or meant to say) that it is the only possible source of absolute truth, assuming it is true. That is to say that we will never get to a point where we can say that we are certain of something with science because we cannot test something infinitely. However God can. So if there is a god, then he is the only source of truth that can be relied on, mainly because if he were to give us truth, he would make it in a fashion we could "digest" and believe in, even if we can't know the truth ourselves.
User avatar #37 - RandomAnonGuy (05/09/2013) [-]
How does moral philosophy prove a god to be the correct one?
User avatar #42 - Vandeekree (05/09/2013) [-]
Because without God to let us know what true right and wrong is, then it is all arbitrary and made up based on how we feel at the time. because of this, there can be no absolute morality without God. Therefore, there is either a god, or there is nothing wrong with doing anything.
User avatar #45 - RandomAnonGuy (05/09/2013) [-]
Objectively, no. Subjectively, yes. As I said below, if that's scary, tough. The universe doesn't care.
User avatar #52 - Vandeekree (05/09/2013) [-]
Technically the universe doesn't care about anything ever. But it remains that we need a purpose else we simply wouldn't be.
#59 - anonymous (05/09/2013) [-]
sex?
User avatar #67 - Vandeekree (05/09/2013) [-]
It can't be sex because you can not have sex, but if you were to have a purpose, you couldn't not fulfill that purpose.
#92 - anonymous (05/09/2013) [-]
sex is a purpose of life. without sex, no life.
User avatar #96 - Vandeekree (05/09/2013) [-]
It does continue life yes, but it is not the purpose. It's not the end result because some people will never procreate, if that's the case did they fail at their purpose? The thing about a purpose is you can't fail at it because failing means you had no purpose.
User avatar #56 - RandomAnonGuy (05/09/2013) [-]
Also, please respond at #49 so we don't have the same argument in two places, might be easier.
User avatar #55 - RandomAnonGuy (05/09/2013) [-]
Why? Because you couldn't deal with it if it were otherwise?
#15 - Why is this a debate? They can sell to any market or demograph… 05/09/2013 on I don't see the problem. +1
#23 - While I did miss that from your first comment(yes, you have to…  [+] (21 new replies) 05/09/2013 on interesting -4
#122 - anonymous (05/09/2013) [-]
Stop trying to justify christianity and other religions. You somewhat speak of relevant matters, such as the existance of endless amounts of rules and truths which we are unaware of, but every serious scientist is aware of this, and the whole point of science is to find truth based on what can be proven or applied in reality. The point where science differs from religion is that the scientific view changes constantly with new evidence, and it always has the basic awareness that nothing is absolute. Religions like christianity are full of flaws, and if you want to believe in a god of any kind then sure do so, but at the very least question this god, and it's actions and if it has feelings and so on. And above all, question when humans claim to have knowledge of that which can be never known. The creation of earth and humans in the bible is absurd, and it just proves how ridiculously highly humans think of themselves. If any god exists it sure has nothing of the sort to do with us
#25 - anonymous (05/09/2013) [-]
Really?
Jesus walking on water, respawning and shit. Methusalem getting 968 years old, rape isn't viewed as a crime, noah building a boat for every lifeform, adam and eve.
User avatar #28 - Vandeekree (05/09/2013) [-]
Yes, all of those things could happen. And if we could go back and see how it happened, I would actually be willing to bet it was less magical and more extraneous circumstances directed by an all knowing God.

What I mean by that is that everything that happened in the bible can be called "unlikely" but not necessarily impossible. Jesus could have physically occupied the space above the oceans surface. What kept him there? I don't know, but if God had spun the world in just the right way that exactly 4 trillion years from the moment the earth started spinning there would be a phenomenon that the Earth's gravity and molecular tension of the water aligned to cause the water to be able to hold the weight of a man right where Jesus was standing, then it was less magical and more just us unable to see how God did it. (Yes, that was an example, please don't pick it apart because I made it up entirely. Please look at the point, not my bs physics lecture haha)
User avatar #36 - RandomAnonGuy (05/09/2013) [-]
If god span the Earth at that rate it would have caused a second flood.
User avatar #40 - Vandeekree (05/09/2013) [-]
At what rate? I wasn't talking about him actually spinning it. Only meant that as a metaphor for when he first created the Earth. So I'm afraid I don't see what you're talking about.
User avatar #43 - RandomAnonGuy (05/09/2013) [-]
"God had spun the world in just the right way that exactly 4 trillion years from the moment the earth started spinning there would be a phenomenon that the Earth's gravity and molecular tension of the water aligned to cause the water to be able to hold the weight of a man right where Jesus was standing"
If the Earth was spinning fast enough for that to happen, water would be launched kilometres inland when it returned to "normal"
User avatar #50 - Vandeekree (05/09/2013) [-]
Ok, please reread what i wrote in parenthesis because you are taking my example literally. All I was saying is that it is possible God set up the dominoes so that when Jesus stepped out onto the water it would hold him. How did he do that? I haven't the foggiest. My point was simply that it could have happened in a way we don't fully understand without ever breaking a single rule of physics.
User avatar #53 - RandomAnonGuy (05/09/2013) [-]
My point is that if something extraordinary was done to make it happen, it would have an extraordinary consequence. It's actually easier to defend it if you just say it was magic rather than trying to justify it with physics.
User avatar #62 - Vandeekree (05/09/2013) [-]
Because I don't believe in magic. I think everything that happens is done so in a way that can be understood if you could see all the "parts" of what caused it. But who said it was an extraordinarily big thing? What if it was merely extraordinarily complex but also tiny? Something molecular where the stars aligned and everything fell into place to create the effect God set the dominoes that are the atoms that make us into falling into?
User avatar #64 - RandomAnonGuy (05/09/2013) [-]
You're pretty much describing water becoming solid for a few seconds, which is impossible. It kind of breaks thermodynamics.
User avatar #68 - Vandeekree (05/09/2013) [-]
Is it actually impossible though? You know for a fact that under no circumstances could something like that happen? If you could see every atom from the beginning up to now and how they interact you don't think you could formulate a way to setup the conditions for that to happen at the moment you wanted?
User avatar #74 - RandomAnonGuy (05/09/2013) [-]
Yeah. Every molecule is constantly in motion, if it hits the surface it either bounces off or escapes and turns into a gas. For it to condense on one point and bind into a crystalline form, it would need to lose energy, which means Jesus would have to be very very cold.
User avatar #76 - Vandeekree (05/09/2013) [-]
I don't think you understand how complex this world is. You seem to be way over simplifying it if you think you can just simulate all the scenarios in your head.

But let me try a simple example. Could you not see that it was possible that Jesus could have been standing on a block of ice that was submerged under the water? I don't think that's how it happened but is that out of the realm of belief?
User avatar #80 - RandomAnonGuy (05/09/2013) [-]
It isn't possible, there's too many problems with it. Unless you're talking about him standing on a glacier, we're talking about suspending gravity so that the ice could support his weight and suspending thermodynamics so that it could form.
User avatar #82 - Vandeekree (05/09/2013) [-]
And I have to ask, how do you know that? Have you seriously done enough experimentation or understand enough about not only physical laws but also every mechanism of this reality that you can tell me it's simply not possible?
#32 - anonymous (05/09/2013) [-]
some of those things i mentioned are possible, if newtons laws are wrong. So all you have to prove that this is possible.

And the universe we can observe is 46,6 lightyears "big". When looking at an objekt far away, we see it's past. We are able to observe things now, that happened shortly after the beginning. We understand how all went from milliseconds after the big bang till today. We already found earthlike planets, but they are too far away.
We go also smaller with quantum-science. We are learning how the parts of an atom are build up and sometimes in the future we all will have quantum-computers. (There are working prototypes).
However, we did not see one single proof or even hint of any god's existence. That is why science isn't interested in religion, while the scientist may be.
User avatar #34 - Vandeekree (05/09/2013) [-]
See, now that's too absolute. You don't have to prove that newton's laws are wrong. Only that they don't always hold or possibly that they can simply be bent to make it look like they are being broken when in reality everything is mathematically sound, it's just that we can't see it. Like a magic trick where something that doesn't look possible is done through a method we can't perceive.

And I must disagree. Science is interested in everything. Just because God is not tangible doesn't mean the people who "do science" aren't looking for the opportunity to get God inside a test tube. But did you think you would look through a big enough telescope and see the back of God's head as he sits in space? God is not big, he is infinite. That means if he doesn't want us to see him, we simply won't. Surely you can't tell me you believe that absence of proof equals disproof?

Yes we can see and do all of that you said, but does that change the fact religion is still as relevant as ever? yes we have high tech computers and we can pick up every bit of light that is reaching our telescope lens, but if anything, that shows just how primitive our technology is, we don't actually understand much of anything, so far, we've only started to make the rocks we make tools out of so small we impressed ourselves.

#54 - anonymous (05/09/2013) [-]
so jesus was a good illusionist?
User avatar #66 - Vandeekree (05/09/2013) [-]
No, Jesus could predict the future. God would set miracles in motion and Jesus would simply be where he needed to be when they took place. Just because the fishermen couldn't see the sub atom vortex that pushed up enough to create the lift(yes, made that up) that Jesus was standing on when he walked on water doesn't mean he was fooling them, he was still standing on the water.
#90 - anonymous (05/09/2013) [-]
you use words, but you don't know their meaning
User avatar #94 - Vandeekree (05/09/2013) [-]
Would you mind pointing out what words I don't understand?
#21 - Yes, but if that's the case then all that is required for some…  [+] (16 new replies) 05/09/2013 on interesting -5
#24 - anonymous (05/09/2013) [-]
There are lot's of facts. We can measure all kind of things. It is a fact, that under current conditions, my ruler is about 35 cm long. Of course, nature has its rules, which we only partly understand as modells (simplyfies reality!) yet. The connections, in form of scientific laws, are therefore to be seen as theories (because they describe modells).
But those theories and laws are functionning that good (little deviations), that we can work with them. Newtons laws will function on earth as long mankind will exist and even if getting forgotten, it can be reinvented.
User avatar #27 - Vandeekree (05/09/2013) [-]
But the ruler example is not really a fact. Facts are hard to come by in reality. Now I might concede that it was observed that the ruler was 35cm long when you looked at it. But you and I are human(you are a human right?) and as such, can't really be sure of anything. Now don't get me wrong, in practice, there is no reason not to live as though the laws we have made up about this world will continue to hold, but we don't actually know they do. You say that ruler is 35cm long only because every time you measure it, it still appears to be 35cm. However, seeing as you nor I can predict the future, you can't be sure it will continue to be 35cm upon your next measurement.

If we look at to more broadly, we can't actually be sure that ruler is even there. You might perceive a ruler when in fact your brain has a flaw or is being chemically or electrically messed with to make you perceive a ruler that doesn't exist meaning that in fact, that ruler is not 35cm, it isn't even real.

Is that the truth? I doubt it. When you tell me you have a ruler that is 35cm I fully believe you without question and accept it as fact. But my point to all this(this is the important part) is that we can't KNOW for certain it's a fact even though we accept it.
#30 - herbvk (05/09/2013) [-]
I don't think you really understand how science works...

anyway if we can't be sure of anything, and everything is relative, it applies just as well to science as to religion. And science is a lot more humane and reliable than religion, so... yeah...
User avatar #33 - Vandeekree (05/09/2013) [-]
Are you sure? Religion has remained the same from it's start with only one revision while science changes constantly! (Yes, that was an attempted joke)

But I do understand how science works. It is a compilation of current observations that we've made. But actually it doesn't apply to religion because the source of religion(the right one at least) is the all knowing God. In fact, what he shows us is the only actual fact we know. Now we can't be sure that such knowledge came from God, but we can logically find that firstly there is a right religion using the logic of moral philosophy, and secondly which one is the true one by comparing them.

As far as science being reliable, yes, it is but only for the little things. Surly you can agree that there are areas where science gets nothing short of blurry.
#48 - herbvk (05/09/2013) [-]
But actually it doesn't apply to religion because the source of religion(the right one at least) is the all knowing God. In fact, what he shows us is the only actual fact we know.

That is circular logic.
User avatar #57 - Vandeekree (05/09/2013) [-]
No, it would be circular if i said that it is true because it says it's true. I said(or meant to say) that it is the only possible source of absolute truth, assuming it is true. That is to say that we will never get to a point where we can say that we are certain of something with science because we cannot test something infinitely. However God can. So if there is a god, then he is the only source of truth that can be relied on, mainly because if he were to give us truth, he would make it in a fashion we could "digest" and believe in, even if we can't know the truth ourselves.
User avatar #37 - RandomAnonGuy (05/09/2013) [-]
How does moral philosophy prove a god to be the correct one?
User avatar #42 - Vandeekree (05/09/2013) [-]
Because without God to let us know what true right and wrong is, then it is all arbitrary and made up based on how we feel at the time. because of this, there can be no absolute morality without God. Therefore, there is either a god, or there is nothing wrong with doing anything.
User avatar #45 - RandomAnonGuy (05/09/2013) [-]
Objectively, no. Subjectively, yes. As I said below, if that's scary, tough. The universe doesn't care.
User avatar #52 - Vandeekree (05/09/2013) [-]
Technically the universe doesn't care about anything ever. But it remains that we need a purpose else we simply wouldn't be.
#59 - anonymous (05/09/2013) [-]
sex?
User avatar #67 - Vandeekree (05/09/2013) [-]
It can't be sex because you can not have sex, but if you were to have a purpose, you couldn't not fulfill that purpose.
#92 - anonymous (05/09/2013) [-]
sex is a purpose of life. without sex, no life.
User avatar #96 - Vandeekree (05/09/2013) [-]
It does continue life yes, but it is not the purpose. It's not the end result because some people will never procreate, if that's the case did they fail at their purpose? The thing about a purpose is you can't fail at it because failing means you had no purpose.
User avatar #56 - RandomAnonGuy (05/09/2013) [-]
Also, please respond at #49 so we don't have the same argument in two places, might be easier.
User avatar #55 - RandomAnonGuy (05/09/2013) [-]
Why? Because you couldn't deal with it if it were otherwise?
#20 - Well I really have to disagree that religion is bad. From what…  [+] (22 new replies) 05/09/2013 on interesting -4
User avatar #38 - RandomAnonGuy (05/09/2013) [-]
"Without something higher dictating right and wrong then your morality can only be based on what you feel is right at any given moment and thus is far to arbitrary, leaving room for literally anything to be called right or wrong."
And that's scary. Doesn't make it false. The universe doesn't give two fucks about what you want to be true.
User avatar #46 - Vandeekree (05/09/2013) [-]
Yes, but you see, if there is no morality then there is no right and wrong and no consequence for doing anything. Without that then our actions mean nothing and we are purposeless. But i simply don't see how something without a purpose exists. Everything that has a beginning has to have been created.
User avatar #49 - RandomAnonGuy (05/09/2013) [-]
Lets just agree to merge the two morality debates we have starting and keep them here, okay?
"...if there is no morality"
Didn't say there wasn't, I said it wasn't objective. As a society, we can collectively agree that we don't like things, and to be a part of that society you have to comply to certain rules. If you don't comply, you will be punished. Don't like it, leave. This allows us to adapt and change based on what suits our situation better, which is far superior to "Herp derp lying is always bad"
User avatar #58 - Vandeekree (05/09/2013) [-]
But if you go by that model, then there could come a time when the majority is convinced that some minority is bad and simply wipe them out. What happens when everyone else agrees something is wrong that you think is ok and want to do but you have nowhere to go that would allow you to practice what you think is right?
User avatar #63 - RandomAnonGuy (05/09/2013) [-]
Then I try to change everyones mind. I argue and I push for change and I form groups and I do everything in my power to bring about change that makes my life better. That's what the civil rights movement was about. That's what the gay marriage thing is about. It's a part of human civilisation.
And in the extreme case that even an entire country decides to murder an ethnic minority, guess what happens? The entire planet gets pissed with them and they go down in history as some of the most evil people to exist. Remember Hitler?
User avatar #71 - Vandeekree (05/09/2013) [-]
But how can something be right or wrong if it can change? There is no backbone to that, it's all simply made up. It doesn't even exist. That's is people making up rules for no reason but because they want them in place.
And yes, I was referencing Hitler because look at the group of people who were convinced to kill all Jews. Now what if a slightly larger group all decided that was right? Instead of millions of Germans, how about a few billion people around the world? That moral system lets anything ever be right.

As for our other conversation that we're now moving down here.
It is because I couldn't deal with it. It makes no sense and there is no logic to it. There has to be a purpose or else we would not exist. There has to be morality because without it our actions mean nothing. There is no difference between living a good life or one of murder and debauchery. If out actions don't matter then we don't have free will. we're not even really choosing what we do. We're just the natural reaction all our atoms have when placed in the pattern that is us.
User avatar #77 - RandomAnonGuy (05/09/2013) [-]
Third or fourth time I've said it, just because it's scary it doesn't make it false. You might not like it, so you have to argue against it. Inventing a god to give yourself a base doesn't solve the problem any more than ignoring it.
And WHY does there have to be a purpose? You're saying it's illogical because you don't like it. You say for us to exist we must have a predetermined purpose, which I think is bullocks. There is no reason that we must have a reason to being here given from above.
User avatar #79 - Vandeekree (05/09/2013) [-]
Because it doesn't make logical sense that we don't have a reason to be here and yet we are. And by "us" I mean matter itself. Why does anything exist if it has no reason too? Purpose is required for existence. Things that are within time can't just be without having come from somewhere.
User avatar #84 - RandomAnonGuy (05/09/2013) [-]
"Purpose is required for existence."
Justify that statement.
User avatar #89 - Vandeekree (05/09/2013) [-]
A purpose is a reason to exist. Nothing exists without reason or else there would be no logic to anything. I have to admit, this assumes that this universe has a logic to it. That everything isn't random. I don't know how to deal with randomness as it doesn't make actual sense to me. There as to be a logic to everything even if I can't perceive it. If there isn't then I don't know how to react to anything because it all seems logical. hat being said, there must be a start to us sense there is a end. We change, thus we could, if we were able, look all the way back, watching the change in reverse. In doing so there has to be a start. A beginning where everything was simply made. Not just particles and atoms but the space they occupy. Back to a time before there was even space, when there was nothing. Nothing can't just spontaneously turn into something without something there to make it so. That would be God, without him, we would not be. In that way, we have purpose because without it, we never would have existed at all, nothing would. Purpose means there is a goal, an end or point that is to be reached. Without that, there is no movement. I hope I'm wording this coherently at least.
User avatar #95 - RandomAnonGuy (05/09/2013) [-]
That entire argument, besides being based on an appeal to emotion (And as I've explained, the universe doesn't care how you feel about something), just makes you run head on into the a paradox of infinite series.
And we have done that. We've gone as far back in time as we can with the data available to us, to within fractions of fractions of fractions of milliseconds. We don't know what happened at T = 0, but that's not a justification for "God did it"
Furthermore, why do you need a god to give you purpose? I love kids, I love science, so I decided to become a science teacher. It's my goal in life to help kids grow up, and to show them the wonder of the universe. Another goal is to die happy. Another goal is to find a woman to love. All of these were assigned to me, by me.
User avatar #98 - Vandeekree (05/09/2013) [-]
And those are wonderful goals, but you see a purpose is not a goal you can fail. If you fail your purpose then that means you had no purpose. So you can't fail. A purpose is not a goal, you can't strive for your purpose because it's something you have, not something you get. You fulfill it simply by having it.
And this is not an appeal to emotion. It doesn't matter if you want to have a purpose or if you are afraid of not having one. I'm not afraid of not having a purpose because if I had no purpose I would not exist. If purpose is not required to exist then why doesn't everything exist? By that i mean why is there not an infinite amount of things that all exist?
User avatar #100 - RandomAnonGuy (05/09/2013) [-]
Three responses, I'll order them as they come.
You're pushing yourself into a corner with that definition, but if it's what you want to work with then fine. What's the value in having a purpose, if you can't fail it? What's the value in life, if whatever you do fulfils your predetermined purpose?

You keep saying you wouldn't exist if you have a purpose, help me understand where you're coming from, fill in the blank.
I must have purpose, or I would not exist.
If I did not have a purpose, I would not exist because...?

"If purpose is not required to exist then why doesn't everything exist?"
Arguably it does, if you're into the multiverse hypothesis. Otherwise, because there are other prerequisites to existence. A predetermined purpose needn't be one of them.
User avatar #103 - Vandeekree (05/09/2013) [-]
Well that entirely depends on the purpose. The purpose as defined by Christian scriptures is that you will choose to do either right or wrong. You will choose to either accept God or reject him. Now you can't do anything but that, but your choice does effect your afterlife.

If you didn't have a purpose you wouldn't exist because you would not have been created. Something had to start you. Create the material you are made from and begin the star dust that eventual turns into you. It's pretty simple. Purpose means reason for existing. You wouldn't exist without reason. You are here because of the reason you are here(i.e. God) and without that reason you would not be here.

But the multiverse can't be true because infinity dictates that there would be a world in every world that destroys every other world and there would be a world for that world that remains undestroyed. Because of that it contradicts itself and defies logic.
User avatar #108 - RandomAnonGuy (05/09/2013) [-]
Didn't really answer my questions at the end, and don't even get me started on heaven and hell. At least, not tonight. I'm about to go to bed, don't have the time to explain why I think they're fundamentally flawed concepts.

And therein lies the problem. You're assuming we needed to be created, and specifically that we needed to be created by something. Now, justify that, because if you can't the entire thing collapses in on itself.

You keep using the word logic slightly wrong for this context, and it's erking me. As a rule of thumb, when you're arguing about the legitimacy of something, if it can't be put into a premise - conclusion format, it's not logic. And I agree on the infinity thing, it's a difficult concept for us to grasp. It's not possible for a pool of infinity things to be destroyed - but if there are infinity things then one of those would have found a way to do it. Thing is, you kind of ignored my actual point in favour of the thing beside it.
User avatar #112 - Vandeekree (05/09/2013) [-]
It's not an assumption. We exist so logically we had to come from somewhere. We had to have a start and a beginning because we have a progression. Purpose and creation go together. One requires the other. Nothing just exists within the context of time that doesn't have a reason for being there. i don't know how else to put it but something wouldn't exist if it didn't exist. it has to have something holding it together. it has to have that body and mass to it that makes it not only fill space but makes space itself. That is purpose. And it's not an assumption, it's a necessity. There is no logical way for us to exist without having been made. Without having a start. We were logically created because there is no alternative.

As for the heaven and hell thing I assume you will say something close to "no crime deserves an infinite punishment" is that close?

As for the point I apparently missed, you'll have to explain it to me again because it seems like more of the same. Everything does have to have a purpose to exist because otherwise either nothing or everything would exist. The purpose is the stopper that limits our world from being either "full" or "empty" for lack of better words.
User avatar #272 - RandomAnonGuy (05/10/2013) [-]
"Purpose and creation go together"
Maybe. Neither of them are inclusive to existence though, you've yet to explain why they do. You keep on repeating it as though that's the case and prefacing it with "Logically", which is wrong. It makes sense to you, yes. That doesn't make it logic.

Pretty much, yeah.

"Otherwise, because there are other prerequisites to existence. A predetermined purpose needn't be one of them."
You keep on stating that we must be created and that we must have a purpose, without justifying why. The only prerequisite for our existence is that other things exist. Those things interact in a way to simulate us. That doesn't need creation, even if it doesn't explain the origin of those things.
And us not knowing the absolute origin of something is not a "logical" reason that a god must exist either. All it proves is that we don't know.
User avatar #129 - kiratheunholy (05/09/2013) [-]
Buddy, you ARE using the word logic wrong. Please go look it up or something. I'm not arguing with you but I feel like you need a second person to tell you what he's already told you. You're not using the word correctly.
#26 - herbvk (05/09/2013) [-]
Religion does good, as do a lot of other things. We don't need it.

"Religion is what explains what is unknowable thanks to the intervention of a deity"
So it explains the unknowable with something unknowable... you see the circular logic there? it does not enhance anything hence, we don't need it.

"But a higher power is required to have a solid base on which morality can be defined."
We don't need a higher power. Morality is not arbitrary even without imaginary friends being involved, it is dynamic though.
Have you ever read a bible? It has some horrible passages. I'm quite glad our moral values do not come from there. And again, we don't need religion.
Morality is not about your feelings, it's basic rules about living in a society. A society with different challenges might have a different morality, but that doesn't make it arbitrary.

"But the bible and the men who claim to have witnessed what they did is evidence of those events. Could they have been fabricated? Yes. But so could every scientific article or peer reviewed journal that has been published."
I witnessed the lord of the rings happen in real time. Fun times.
Scientific papers can be fabricated, yes. But science is all about precisely predicting future events, and they have been damn good about it.
I don't see your bible predicting the weather or nuclear fission. It has proclaimed the end of the world though, for about 1000 years now.

" when there is a scientist with a theory that we don't have the ability to prove yet then is he criticized for holding onto the belief it's true? "
I pray you never see mathemathicians fight, it's one of the scariest things i've seen.

"But try to remember that science states that literally everything we now hold as fact could be wrong."
It does not. Science is an approximation to reality. It's not wrong, it's just not absolutely correct.

"In effect, science deals in belief while religion deals in fact."
you troll you ;)

~Herbert von Kantenschwan
User avatar #31 - Vandeekree (05/09/2013) [-]
You don't have to know all about something to gain knowledge from it. That was not actually circular logic. You can smelt metals to make a stronger one without understanding it's the new atomic structure that results in the alloy to make bronze or know that it's stronger than copper.

Yes, I actually have read the bible and I don't see what horrible things it has except at the parts where it shows not to do those horrible things. The bible says "an eye for an eye" at the place where it tells you NOT to do that. The bible tells of the Israelites taking over modern Israel ONLY when God directly said to do it.
And yes, people making up different codes of what is right and wrong is arbitrary. They create them based on how the group feels and a group of people deciding what they want to be right and wrong is just as arbitrary as a single person doing it. It's why some people say the death penalty is right and others say it's wrong. Are they both right or is it either definitively right or wrong? You simply can't have absolute morality without God to define said morality.

You did not witness the lord of the rings, you witnessed pixels on a screen, to say you actually saw an ork and not a man in makeup would be a lie.
And i agree it didn't specifically say anything about those two, but it did predict the rise and fall of Alexander the Great and foretold the return of Israel as a nation. Google it, the bible actually predicted a multitude of things. Many of which have come true with exact accuracy and some that are predictions of the future. It's quite interesting actually.

Yeah, I hear those kinds of altercations can cause division between good friends...(Oh come on that was funny! No? Ok, I'll stop...)

But if you're not absolutely correct you're most certainly not right. One of the principles of science is that any part of it can be corrected and updated based on new discoveries. Thus every part could, in fact, be wrong.
#44 - herbvk (05/09/2013) [-]
hi again :D

The problem is that as soon as Science explains something you people say "well that's how god intended it to be", so until we've explained everything there will still be a loophole for god

"That was not actually circular logic."
God can't be explained.
If god can't be explained, he defies logic.
if god defies logic, and can't be explained, it is unkown.
So if you answer anything with god, you've efectually answered with "I don't know".

"You simply can't have absolute morality without God to define said morality."
I agree completely, morality is not absolute. This is why you need a different set of rules when living in different conditions.

In what way is me saying I saw orks fighting people, and anybody saying jesus came back from the dead different?
As for the predictions of the future it's a bit difficult to say really, the bible is not specific, which makes it kinda easy to predict stuff.

"But if you're not absolutely correct you're most certainly not right. One of the principles of science is that any part of it can be corrected and updated based on new discoveries. Thus every part could, in fact, be wrong."
That is correct. Our models and scientific explainations might not be absolutely correct, but what we achieved with this kinda makes a strong point for science doesn't it?

Praying doesn't solve problems.
Science does.

~Herbert von Kantenschwan
User avatar #65 - Vandeekree (05/09/2013) [-]
True, but then if an all powerful being wanted to not be seen so directly would that not be the place of choice to hide? I wouldn't call it a loophole sense tat implies he's cheating somehow when in fact he simply stays out of our perception.

And there are parts of God that can be explained and parts that can't. Just because we can't see the big picture doesn't mean you're saying I don't know whenever you talk about God. But your explanation for why it's circular logic still doesn't even suggest at circular logic, only a logical fallacy.

But relative morality is arbitrary and can change to fit anything at all. all you have to do is convince yourself that killing babies so they don't have to suffer through life is right and suddenly you're doing nothing wrong? I think that's illogical. There is no morality besides absolute morality.

If you look at the predictions I think you will find it's pretty darn specific, far more specific than any other religion text.(that I've studied so far)

Yes, but also the weak point, because while that model allows you to get infinity close to the truth, it never actually lets you have a real absolute truth, only evidence that dances around it. Now that's fine when it comes to things we actually have so much proof of we can live our lives daily as though it is fact, but there are some things that we have virtually no proof of, there are places where science simply struggles do to our own physical limitations as humans.

And I would disagree. Science doesn't resolve problems, people do. If you study the bible, you are not supposed to ask for things when you pray. God is not a genie that you wish to. You can ask for strength and guidance, but if you want something done, God has given you the hands to do it.
#17 - Was this a serious reply or am I being mocked? No, I…  [+] (34 new replies) 05/09/2013 on interesting -3
User avatar #83 - RandomAnonGuy (05/09/2013) [-]
I can't reply to you anymore down the bottom there, so I'll copy paste your comment here and respond to it so you know what I'm talking about.
"And I have to ask, how do you know that? Have you seriously done enough experimentation or understand enough about not only physical laws but also every mechanism of this reality that you can tell me it's simply not possible?"

I haven't, no. But they have been done. We know very well how this universe works, at least in our situation, and the mechanics thereof exclude scenarios like yours. You can postulate an unknown force if you like, but physicists are just going to laugh at you.
User avatar #86 - Vandeekree (05/09/2013) [-]
And I have to say that's terribly wrong. We know very little about this world we live in. How it works, its mechanisms. We are tragically in the dark. And trust me when I say studies like that have not been done because they would require more time than computers have been around and, sense i work with computers I can confidently say we don't have a computer than can even come close to simulating what would be required to say such a circumstance could never occur. I don't think you understand how big the scenario I'm proposing is. I'm not saying there is an unknown variable outside of our current understanding of physics. It would all be fully within even the laws we currently observe. Something planned from the beginning of Earth's creation. it wouldn't be that difficult to setup such a scenario.
User avatar #88 - RandomAnonGuy (05/09/2013) [-]
We have problems understanding the very small. We have problems understanding the very fast. We have problems understanding the very hot and the very cold. We have problems understanding huge pressures, huge densities, and huge numbers of variables. I'm not denying that. But when it comes to the temperatures, speeds, pressures, densities and other various natures of our world, we know them very well. We have equations to predict how much ice over how much surface area you'd need to keep a man afloat. We have equations to predict how much energy you'd need to leech from a body of water to turn it to ice. We can predict how much upward swell you'd need to lift a man, and how much upward swell would break a sheet of ice of whatever thickness. None of these converge on a single point where it'd be a physical possibility, I can tell you that in confidence.
User avatar #93 - Vandeekree (05/09/2013) [-]
And i think you simply can't. I don't think you are thinking large enough and i honestly don't know how to get you too. If I give a small example you pick it apart literally as though I'm talking about it and not just using it as an example. If i give a large example you tell me it is impossible as though you somehow know all possible outcomes that this Earth can make out of it's atoms. I promise I'm not trying to insult, but I think you think you know more than you really do because there is no possible way you can account for all circumstances.
User avatar #97 - RandomAnonGuy (05/09/2013) [-]
You don't need to know all circumstances to eliminate certain scenarios. I don't know how many digits (153,632x765,127)^2 has, but I can eliminate two as a possibility because it's not compatible with our math. I can eliminate a man being suspended above water spontaneously because he's too dense, ice is too fragile and it's physically impossible for it to form anyway. This isn't simple probability, we're talking about how molecules act under certain conditions, and forming a solid structure to stand on is not something water at room temperature is capable of doing.
User avatar #99 - Vandeekree (05/09/2013) [-]
Ok, yes, my one example might not work. But you are missing the entire point. it was an example, made up by me, in my brain. As in it has no connection to the real world besides me substituting it in to try and get you to see the world is so complex you cannot know that that thing could not happen. You very arrogantly think you do, but you don't. i don't know how you can think you can see every possibility when you don't even know all the rules of this world. Yes you know a few, but only one by one such as how strong ice is or how buoyant. But you can't even imagine(unless you are a lot smarter than me) how those factors might inter connect to create the right circumstances. There are a million billion factors involved that all could effect one another at the same time leading to a multiplicative of that many new factors that could be effecting the situation. I don't see how you think you can know that by even the most optimistic of counts.
User avatar #102 - RandomAnonGuy (05/09/2013) [-]
Did you see the latest men in black movie, where there was that guy that lives in the fourth dimension? Can see every variation of human history in the spot that he happens to be standing? At one point, he goes on a monologue about how a baseball player got a particular baseball, where the stitching was slightly off, so he hit it two microns lower than he would have, and consequently hit it out of the park. That's a domino effect that's physically possible. However, in the case of Jesus walking on water, there's two things that could effect him without us knowing for sure about it. The air, and the water. If the air was to lift him, the friction and/or compression would have torn his skin off and possibly set him on fire. If it was the water, we've already come across the problems there. If it was both, it wouldn't have been enough. To suspend a person above a surface without it being visibly apparent to the observer requires strong sleight of hand or a miracle.
You're trying to account for miracles that were designed to contradict nature, using nature. It's not a matter of probability, there are no known forces that could have done it. It was either a magic trick, or magic. If it happened at all.
User avatar #106 - Vandeekree (05/09/2013) [-]
There is no reason i has to contradict nature. And the air and water is a painfully simple summery of the forces at work. How about time, how about gravity and temperature and momentum and friction and countless other variable that all effect every atom at that moment.
User avatar #109 - RandomAnonGuy (05/09/2013) [-]
Gravity, temperature and momentum are the fundamental problems. Gravity is a constant, the water is either frozen or not, Jesus' momentum he gains from falling is kind of what's stopping him from floating. Friction is what's killing him with the air and what's breaking the ice.
User avatar #110 - Vandeekree (05/09/2013) [-]
But I'm not just talking about the time in which he does it, there is also every one of these factors in the time from of all time leading up to that moment.
User avatar #273 - RandomAnonGuy (05/10/2013) [-]
Just ignore the domino effect you're thinking about and focus on the problem as it is.
The question is whether or not it's physically possible, using all of natures forces and abilities, to support a man on the surface of water in a way that is not apparent to the observer, and is not intentional deception on his part (Glass under the water, for example) and the fact is that it's simply not. There is no way that the water, air, or universe in general could behave that would allow that.
#22 - anonymous (05/09/2013) [-]
you're being mocked, sorry. (look it up on youtube)

Point i was trying to make is, that if you don't understand something, there might still be people understanding more of it. Science is a battle, so don't think of scientist as a unity. If they are all wrong and someone can prove it, you can bet your ass he will. That's what makes you famous.
User avatar #23 - Vandeekree (05/09/2013) [-]
While I did miss that from your first comment(yes, you have to spell it out for me, I can be very slow sometimes) but in that context, prove only means "able to convince others." Now i understand there must be evidence presented, but that still leaves it open that that evidence, no matter how solid it looks, could be flawed or even completely wrong based on the actual facts.

What i mean is that I agree, science is a battle that happens constantly in the scientific community, but, in this context, victory doesn't always means fact has been attained. Yes everyone might come to a consensus, but our understanding of how things work isn't flawless and we have yet to reach a point where we can claim it will ever be flawless. It's good to trust the things qualified scientists find about their fields, but there has yet to be anything definitive to contradict the bible and yet some people act as though science has updated claims in the bible when in fact it has only either supported those claims, or we have been unable to find a way to actually test claims. So should religion be dropped? No, not unless there is evidence that shows flaw in the bible.(That implies Christianity is the correct path of course sense it's the only one I've found to be flawless)
#122 - anonymous (05/09/2013) [-]
Stop trying to justify christianity and other religions. You somewhat speak of relevant matters, such as the existance of endless amounts of rules and truths which we are unaware of, but every serious scientist is aware of this, and the whole point of science is to find truth based on what can be proven or applied in reality. The point where science differs from religion is that the scientific view changes constantly with new evidence, and it always has the basic awareness that nothing is absolute. Religions like christianity are full of flaws, and if you want to believe in a god of any kind then sure do so, but at the very least question this god, and it's actions and if it has feelings and so on. And above all, question when humans claim to have knowledge of that which can be never known. The creation of earth and humans in the bible is absurd, and it just proves how ridiculously highly humans think of themselves. If any god exists it sure has nothing of the sort to do with us
#25 - anonymous (05/09/2013) [-]
Really?
Jesus walking on water, respawning and shit. Methusalem getting 968 years old, rape isn't viewed as a crime, noah building a boat for every lifeform, adam and eve.
User avatar #28 - Vandeekree (05/09/2013) [-]
Yes, all of those things could happen. And if we could go back and see how it happened, I would actually be willing to bet it was less magical and more extraneous circumstances directed by an all knowing God.

What I mean by that is that everything that happened in the bible can be called "unlikely" but not necessarily impossible. Jesus could have physically occupied the space above the oceans surface. What kept him there? I don't know, but if God had spun the world in just the right way that exactly 4 trillion years from the moment the earth started spinning there would be a phenomenon that the Earth's gravity and molecular tension of the water aligned to cause the water to be able to hold the weight of a man right where Jesus was standing, then it was less magical and more just us unable to see how God did it. (Yes, that was an example, please don't pick it apart because I made it up entirely. Please look at the point, not my bs physics lecture haha)
User avatar #36 - RandomAnonGuy (05/09/2013) [-]
If god span the Earth at that rate it would have caused a second flood.
User avatar #40 - Vandeekree (05/09/2013) [-]
At what rate? I wasn't talking about him actually spinning it. Only meant that as a metaphor for when he first created the Earth. So I'm afraid I don't see what you're talking about.
User avatar #43 - RandomAnonGuy (05/09/2013) [-]
"God had spun the world in just the right way that exactly 4 trillion years from the moment the earth started spinning there would be a phenomenon that the Earth's gravity and molecular tension of the water aligned to cause the water to be able to hold the weight of a man right where Jesus was standing"
If the Earth was spinning fast enough for that to happen, water would be launched kilometres inland when it returned to "normal"
User avatar #50 - Vandeekree (05/09/2013) [-]
Ok, please reread what i wrote in parenthesis because you are taking my example literally. All I was saying is that it is possible God set up the dominoes so that when Jesus stepped out onto the water it would hold him. How did he do that? I haven't the foggiest. My point was simply that it could have happened in a way we don't fully understand without ever breaking a single rule of physics.
User avatar #53 - RandomAnonGuy (05/09/2013) [-]
My point is that if something extraordinary was done to make it happen, it would have an extraordinary consequence. It's actually easier to defend it if you just say it was magic rather than trying to justify it with physics.
User avatar #62 - Vandeekree (05/09/2013) [-]
Because I don't believe in magic. I think everything that happens is done so in a way that can be understood if you could see all the "parts" of what caused it. But who said it was an extraordinarily big thing? What if it was merely extraordinarily complex but also tiny? Something molecular where the stars aligned and everything fell into place to create the effect God set the dominoes that are the atoms that make us into falling into?
User avatar #64 - RandomAnonGuy (05/09/2013) [-]
You're pretty much describing water becoming solid for a few seconds, which is impossible. It kind of breaks thermodynamics.
User avatar #68 - Vandeekree (05/09/2013) [-]
Is it actually impossible though? You know for a fact that under no circumstances could something like that happen? If you could see every atom from the beginning up to now and how they interact you don't think you could formulate a way to setup the conditions for that to happen at the moment you wanted?
User avatar #74 - RandomAnonGuy (05/09/2013) [-]
Yeah. Every molecule is constantly in motion, if it hits the surface it either bounces off or escapes and turns into a gas. For it to condense on one point and bind into a crystalline form, it would need to lose energy, which means Jesus would have to be very very cold.
User avatar #76 - Vandeekree (05/09/2013) [-]
I don't think you understand how complex this world is. You seem to be way over simplifying it if you think you can just simulate all the scenarios in your head.

But let me try a simple example. Could you not see that it was possible that Jesus could have been standing on a block of ice that was submerged under the water? I don't think that's how it happened but is that out of the realm of belief?
User avatar #80 - RandomAnonGuy (05/09/2013) [-]
It isn't possible, there's too many problems with it. Unless you're talking about him standing on a glacier, we're talking about suspending gravity so that the ice could support his weight and suspending thermodynamics so that it could form.
User avatar #82 - Vandeekree (05/09/2013) [-]
And I have to ask, how do you know that? Have you seriously done enough experimentation or understand enough about not only physical laws but also every mechanism of this reality that you can tell me it's simply not possible?
#32 - anonymous (05/09/2013) [-]
some of those things i mentioned are possible, if newtons laws are wrong. So all you have to prove that this is possible.

And the universe we can observe is 46,6 lightyears "big". When looking at an objekt far away, we see it's past. We are able to observe things now, that happened shortly after the beginning. We understand how all went from milliseconds after the big bang till today. We already found earthlike planets, but they are too far away.
We go also smaller with quantum-science. We are learning how the parts of an atom are build up and sometimes in the future we all will have quantum-computers. (There are working prototypes).
However, we did not see one single proof or even hint of any god's existence. That is why science isn't interested in religion, while the scientist may be.
User avatar #34 - Vandeekree (05/09/2013) [-]
See, now that's too absolute. You don't have to prove that newton's laws are wrong. Only that they don't always hold or possibly that they can simply be bent to make it look like they are being broken when in reality everything is mathematically sound, it's just that we can't see it. Like a magic trick where something that doesn't look possible is done through a method we can't perceive.

And I must disagree. Science is interested in everything. Just because God is not tangible doesn't mean the people who "do science" aren't looking for the opportunity to get God inside a test tube. But did you think you would look through a big enough telescope and see the back of God's head as he sits in space? God is not big, he is infinite. That means if he doesn't want us to see him, we simply won't. Surely you can't tell me you believe that absence of proof equals disproof?

Yes we can see and do all of that you said, but does that change the fact religion is still as relevant as ever? yes we have high tech computers and we can pick up every bit of light that is reaching our telescope lens, but if anything, that shows just how primitive our technology is, we don't actually understand much of anything, so far, we've only started to make the rocks we make tools out of so small we impressed ourselves.

#54 - anonymous (05/09/2013) [-]
so jesus was a good illusionist?
User avatar #66 - Vandeekree (05/09/2013) [-]
No, Jesus could predict the future. God would set miracles in motion and Jesus would simply be where he needed to be when they took place. Just because the fishermen couldn't see the sub atom vortex that pushed up enough to create the lift(yes, made that up) that Jesus was standing on when he walked on water doesn't mean he was fooling them, he was still standing on the water.
#90 - anonymous (05/09/2013) [-]
you use words, but you don't know their meaning
User avatar #94 - Vandeekree (05/09/2013) [-]
Would you mind pointing out what words I don't understand?
#15 - Yes. As a matter of fact they complement each other to a degre…  [+] (43 new replies) 05/09/2013 on interesting -6
User avatar #35 - RandomAnonGuy (05/09/2013) [-]
I'm back and can now reply.
Ex nihilo creation refers to the 6000 year old universe/earth thing, and is what the "Teach both sides" thing is about. There are no biology classrooms where a teacher will say "This is how evolution happened and it was not guided by god", there are no physics classrooms where a teacher will say "The universe expanded from a singularity ~14 billion years ago, and was not done by a god."
User avatar #39 - Vandeekree (05/09/2013) [-]
I looked it up to make sure and ex nihilo is not specifically the 6000 year old theory. All ex nihilo means is "creation from nothing" and while there are those that believe it happened suddenly at 6000 years ago, all Christians believe in ex nihilo even if they think it's 6000 years ago or started 15 billion years ago.

But I agree with the last part. That was my point to a degree. The argument that God should be mentioned in school is petty sense no part of our current understanding of the universe timeline includes "also this wasn't done by God."
User avatar #41 - RandomAnonGuy (05/09/2013) [-]
My mistake, I meant something more along the lines of "As I was using it, Ex nihilo creation refers to..." yadda yadda yadda.
User avatar #47 - Vandeekree (05/09/2013) [-]
Well please try to be specific with me because I'm clearly not smart enough to grasp it without you spelling it out for me. Anyway it was nice talking to you.
User avatar #51 - RandomAnonGuy (05/09/2013) [-]
We're still talking, if you haven't noticed I'm the same guy commenting on like three different strains right now :P
User avatar #60 - Vandeekree (05/09/2013) [-]
Yes, i wasn't saying goodbye, only that I've enjoyed it
User avatar #61 - RandomAnonGuy (05/09/2013) [-]
Oh. Well apparently you have to spell out things for me too or I'll get it wrong.
#16 - anonymous (05/09/2013) [-]
Tide goes in, tide goes out. You can't explain that.
User avatar #17 - Vandeekree (05/09/2013) [-]
Was this a serious reply or am I being mocked?

No, I'm not smart enough to tell on my own, haha
User avatar #83 - RandomAnonGuy (05/09/2013) [-]
I can't reply to you anymore down the bottom there, so I'll copy paste your comment here and respond to it so you know what I'm talking about.
"And I have to ask, how do you know that? Have you seriously done enough experimentation or understand enough about not only physical laws but also every mechanism of this reality that you can tell me it's simply not possible?"

I haven't, no. But they have been done. We know very well how this universe works, at least in our situation, and the mechanics thereof exclude scenarios like yours. You can postulate an unknown force if you like, but physicists are just going to laugh at you.
User avatar #86 - Vandeekree (05/09/2013) [-]
And I have to say that's terribly wrong. We know very little about this world we live in. How it works, its mechanisms. We are tragically in the dark. And trust me when I say studies like that have not been done because they would require more time than computers have been around and, sense i work with computers I can confidently say we don't have a computer than can even come close to simulating what would be required to say such a circumstance could never occur. I don't think you understand how big the scenario I'm proposing is. I'm not saying there is an unknown variable outside of our current understanding of physics. It would all be fully within even the laws we currently observe. Something planned from the beginning of Earth's creation. it wouldn't be that difficult to setup such a scenario.
User avatar #88 - RandomAnonGuy (05/09/2013) [-]
We have problems understanding the very small. We have problems understanding the very fast. We have problems understanding the very hot and the very cold. We have problems understanding huge pressures, huge densities, and huge numbers of variables. I'm not denying that. But when it comes to the temperatures, speeds, pressures, densities and other various natures of our world, we know them very well. We have equations to predict how much ice over how much surface area you'd need to keep a man afloat. We have equations to predict how much energy you'd need to leech from a body of water to turn it to ice. We can predict how much upward swell you'd need to lift a man, and how much upward swell would break a sheet of ice of whatever thickness. None of these converge on a single point where it'd be a physical possibility, I can tell you that in confidence.
User avatar #93 - Vandeekree (05/09/2013) [-]
And i think you simply can't. I don't think you are thinking large enough and i honestly don't know how to get you too. If I give a small example you pick it apart literally as though I'm talking about it and not just using it as an example. If i give a large example you tell me it is impossible as though you somehow know all possible outcomes that this Earth can make out of it's atoms. I promise I'm not trying to insult, but I think you think you know more than you really do because there is no possible way you can account for all circumstances.
User avatar #97 - RandomAnonGuy (05/09/2013) [-]
You don't need to know all circumstances to eliminate certain scenarios. I don't know how many digits (153,632x765,127)^2 has, but I can eliminate two as a possibility because it's not compatible with our math. I can eliminate a man being suspended above water spontaneously because he's too dense, ice is too fragile and it's physically impossible for it to form anyway. This isn't simple probability, we're talking about how molecules act under certain conditions, and forming a solid structure to stand on is not something water at room temperature is capable of doing.
User avatar #99 - Vandeekree (05/09/2013) [-]
Ok, yes, my one example might not work. But you are missing the entire point. it was an example, made up by me, in my brain. As in it has no connection to the real world besides me substituting it in to try and get you to see the world is so complex you cannot know that that thing could not happen. You very arrogantly think you do, but you don't. i don't know how you can think you can see every possibility when you don't even know all the rules of this world. Yes you know a few, but only one by one such as how strong ice is or how buoyant. But you can't even imagine(unless you are a lot smarter than me) how those factors might inter connect to create the right circumstances. There are a million billion factors involved that all could effect one another at the same time leading to a multiplicative of that many new factors that could be effecting the situation. I don't see how you think you can know that by even the most optimistic of counts.
User avatar #102 - RandomAnonGuy (05/09/2013) [-]
Did you see the latest men in black movie, where there was that guy that lives in the fourth dimension? Can see every variation of human history in the spot that he happens to be standing? At one point, he goes on a monologue about how a baseball player got a particular baseball, where the stitching was slightly off, so he hit it two microns lower than he would have, and consequently hit it out of the park. That's a domino effect that's physically possible. However, in the case of Jesus walking on water, there's two things that could effect him without us knowing for sure about it. The air, and the water. If the air was to lift him, the friction and/or compression would have torn his skin off and possibly set him on fire. If it was the water, we've already come across the problems there. If it was both, it wouldn't have been enough. To suspend a person above a surface without it being visibly apparent to the observer requires strong sleight of hand or a miracle.
You're trying to account for miracles that were designed to contradict nature, using nature. It's not a matter of probability, there are no known forces that could have done it. It was either a magic trick, or magic. If it happened at all.
User avatar #106 - Vandeekree (05/09/2013) [-]
There is no reason i has to contradict nature. And the air and water is a painfully simple summery of the forces at work. How about time, how about gravity and temperature and momentum and friction and countless other variable that all effect every atom at that moment.
User avatar #109 - RandomAnonGuy (05/09/2013) [-]
Gravity, temperature and momentum are the fundamental problems. Gravity is a constant, the water is either frozen or not, Jesus' momentum he gains from falling is kind of what's stopping him from floating. Friction is what's killing him with the air and what's breaking the ice.
User avatar #110 - Vandeekree (05/09/2013) [-]
But I'm not just talking about the time in which he does it, there is also every one of these factors in the time from of all time leading up to that moment.
User avatar #273 - RandomAnonGuy (05/10/2013) [-]
Just ignore the domino effect you're thinking about and focus on the problem as it is.
The question is whether or not it's physically possible, using all of natures forces and abilities, to support a man on the surface of water in a way that is not apparent to the observer, and is not intentional deception on his part (Glass under the water, for example) and the fact is that it's simply not. There is no way that the water, air, or universe in general could behave that would allow that.
#22 - anonymous (05/09/2013) [-]
you're being mocked, sorry. (look it up on youtube)

Point i was trying to make is, that if you don't understand something, there might still be people understanding more of it. Science is a battle, so don't think of scientist as a unity. If they are all wrong and someone can prove it, you can bet your ass he will. That's what makes you famous.
User avatar #23 - Vandeekree (05/09/2013) [-]
While I did miss that from your first comment(yes, you have to spell it out for me, I can be very slow sometimes) but in that context, prove only means "able to convince others." Now i understand there must be evidence presented, but that still leaves it open that that evidence, no matter how solid it looks, could be flawed or even completely wrong based on the actual facts.

What i mean is that I agree, science is a battle that happens constantly in the scientific community, but, in this context, victory doesn't always means fact has been attained. Yes everyone might come to a consensus, but our understanding of how things work isn't flawless and we have yet to reach a point where we can claim it will ever be flawless. It's good to trust the things qualified scientists find about their fields, but there has yet to be anything definitive to contradict the bible and yet some people act as though science has updated claims in the bible when in fact it has only either supported those claims, or we have been unable to find a way to actually test claims. So should religion be dropped? No, not unless there is evidence that shows flaw in the bible.(That implies Christianity is the correct path of course sense it's the only one I've found to be flawless)
#122 - anonymous (05/09/2013) [-]
Stop trying to justify christianity and other religions. You somewhat speak of relevant matters, such as the existance of endless amounts of rules and truths which we are unaware of, but every serious scientist is aware of this, and the whole point of science is to find truth based on what can be proven or applied in reality. The point where science differs from religion is that the scientific view changes constantly with new evidence, and it always has the basic awareness that nothing is absolute. Religions like christianity are full of flaws, and if you want to believe in a god of any kind then sure do so, but at the very least question this god, and it's actions and if it has feelings and so on. And above all, question when humans claim to have knowledge of that which can be never known. The creation of earth and humans in the bible is absurd, and it just proves how ridiculously highly humans think of themselves. If any god exists it sure has nothing of the sort to do with us
#25 - anonymous (05/09/2013) [-]
Really?
Jesus walking on water, respawning and shit. Methusalem getting 968 years old, rape isn't viewed as a crime, noah building a boat for every lifeform, adam and eve.
User avatar #28 - Vandeekree (05/09/2013) [-]
Yes, all of those things could happen. And if we could go back and see how it happened, I would actually be willing to bet it was less magical and more extraneous circumstances directed by an all knowing God.

What I mean by that is that everything that happened in the bible can be called "unlikely" but not necessarily impossible. Jesus could have physically occupied the space above the oceans surface. What kept him there? I don't know, but if God had spun the world in just the right way that exactly 4 trillion years from the moment the earth started spinning there would be a phenomenon that the Earth's gravity and molecular tension of the water aligned to cause the water to be able to hold the weight of a man right where Jesus was standing, then it was less magical and more just us unable to see how God did it. (Yes, that was an example, please don't pick it apart because I made it up entirely. Please look at the point, not my bs physics lecture haha)
User avatar #36 - RandomAnonGuy (05/09/2013) [-]
If god span the Earth at that rate it would have caused a second flood.
User avatar #40 - Vandeekree (05/09/2013) [-]
At what rate? I wasn't talking about him actually spinning it. Only meant that as a metaphor for when he first created the Earth. So I'm afraid I don't see what you're talking about.
User avatar #43 - RandomAnonGuy (05/09/2013) [-]
"God had spun the world in just the right way that exactly 4 trillion years from the moment the earth started spinning there would be a phenomenon that the Earth's gravity and molecular tension of the water aligned to cause the water to be able to hold the weight of a man right where Jesus was standing"
If the Earth was spinning fast enough for that to happen, water would be launched kilometres inland when it returned to "normal"
User avatar #50 - Vandeekree (05/09/2013) [-]
Ok, please reread what i wrote in parenthesis because you are taking my example literally. All I was saying is that it is possible God set up the dominoes so that when Jesus stepped out onto the water it would hold him. How did he do that? I haven't the foggiest. My point was simply that it could have happened in a way we don't fully understand without ever breaking a single rule of physics.
User avatar #53 - RandomAnonGuy (05/09/2013) [-]
My point is that if something extraordinary was done to make it happen, it would have an extraordinary consequence. It's actually easier to defend it if you just say it was magic rather than trying to justify it with physics.
User avatar #62 - Vandeekree (05/09/2013) [-]
Because I don't believe in magic. I think everything that happens is done so in a way that can be understood if you could see all the "parts" of what caused it. But who said it was an extraordinarily big thing? What if it was merely extraordinarily complex but also tiny? Something molecular where the stars aligned and everything fell into place to create the effect God set the dominoes that are the atoms that make us into falling into?
User avatar #64 - RandomAnonGuy (05/09/2013) [-]
You're pretty much describing water becoming solid for a few seconds, which is impossible. It kind of breaks thermodynamics.
User avatar #68 - Vandeekree (05/09/2013) [-]
Is it actually impossible though? You know for a fact that under no circumstances could something like that happen? If you could see every atom from the beginning up to now and how they interact you don't think you could formulate a way to setup the conditions for that to happen at the moment you wanted?
User avatar #74 - RandomAnonGuy (05/09/2013) [-]
Yeah. Every molecule is constantly in motion, if it hits the surface it either bounces off or escapes and turns into a gas. For it to condense on one point and bind into a crystalline form, it would need to lose energy, which means Jesus would have to be very very cold.
User avatar #76 - Vandeekree (05/09/2013) [-]
I don't think you understand how complex this world is. You seem to be way over simplifying it if you think you can just simulate all the scenarios in your head.

But let me try a simple example. Could you not see that it was possible that Jesus could have been standing on a block of ice that was submerged under the water? I don't think that's how it happened but is that out of the realm of belief?
User avatar #80 - RandomAnonGuy (05/09/2013) [-]
It isn't possible, there's too many problems with it. Unless you're talking about him standing on a glacier, we're talking about suspending gravity so that the ice could support his weight and suspending thermodynamics so that it could form.
User avatar #82 - Vandeekree (05/09/2013) [-]
And I have to ask, how do you know that? Have you seriously done enough experimentation or understand enough about not only physical laws but also every mechanism of this reality that you can tell me it's simply not possible?
#32 - anonymous (05/09/2013) [-]
some of those things i mentioned are possible, if newtons laws are wrong. So all you have to prove that this is possible.

And the universe we can observe is 46,6 lightyears "big". When looking at an objekt far away, we see it's past. We are able to observe things now, that happened shortly after the beginning. We understand how all went from milliseconds after the big bang till today. We already found earthlike planets, but they are too far away.
We go also smaller with quantum-science. We are learning how the parts of an atom are build up and sometimes in the future we all will have quantum-computers. (There are working prototypes).
However, we did not see one single proof or even hint of any god's existence. That is why science isn't interested in religion, while the scientist may be.
User avatar #34 - Vandeekree (05/09/2013) [-]
See, now that's too absolute. You don't have to prove that newton's laws are wrong. Only that they don't always hold or possibly that they can simply be bent to make it look like they are being broken when in reality everything is mathematically sound, it's just that we can't see it. Like a magic trick where something that doesn't look possible is done through a method we can't perceive.

And I must disagree. Science is interested in everything. Just because God is not tangible doesn't mean the people who "do science" aren't looking for the opportunity to get God inside a test tube. But did you think you would look through a big enough telescope and see the back of God's head as he sits in space? God is not big, he is infinite. That means if he doesn't want us to see him, we simply won't. Surely you can't tell me you believe that absence of proof equals disproof?

Yes we can see and do all of that you said, but does that change the fact religion is still as relevant as ever? yes we have high tech computers and we can pick up every bit of light that is reaching our telescope lens, but if anything, that shows just how primitive our technology is, we don't actually understand much of anything, so far, we've only started to make the rocks we make tools out of so small we impressed ourselves.

#54 - anonymous (05/09/2013) [-]
so jesus was a good illusionist?
User avatar #66 - Vandeekree (05/09/2013) [-]
No, Jesus could predict the future. God would set miracles in motion and Jesus would simply be where he needed to be when they took place. Just because the fishermen couldn't see the sub atom vortex that pushed up enough to create the lift(yes, made that up) that Jesus was standing on when he walked on water doesn't mean he was fooling them, he was still standing on the water.
#90 - anonymous (05/09/2013) [-]
you use words, but you don't know their meaning
User avatar #94 - Vandeekree (05/09/2013) [-]
Would you mind pointing out what words I don't understand?
#3 - Was it worth it? Was it really worth getting fully geared up i…  [+] (27 new replies) 05/09/2013 on Don't tell me what to do +115
#36 - hillbillypowpow (05/09/2013) [-]
It's always worth it.
#34 - thejoemotes (05/09/2013) [-]
#30 - Killerwale (05/09/2013) [-]
hfw
User avatar #18 - AvatarAirBender (05/09/2013) [-]
Do you see the tool bucket and tool bags? He is most likely fixing it. They dont just drain it all the time.
User avatar #12 - onceman (05/09/2013) [-]
What if he's doing some sort of maintainance or fixing?
User avatar #14 - elitefourkoga (05/09/2013) [-]
i think theyd drain the pool for that..
User avatar #65 - yusay (05/09/2013) [-]
My dad works on pools and I occasionally work with him. You'd be surprised to know they rarely do that unless it's a very serious problem.
User avatar #15 - onceman (05/09/2013) [-]
Yeah that's what I thought
#22 - anonymous (05/09/2013) [-]
...What if the drain's broken...
#11 - gaminggenus (05/09/2013) [-]
#10 - chromefile (05/09/2013) [-]
#6 - bibbity (05/09/2013) [-]
Yes. It is immensely peaceful underwater. Sometimes when I want to take a break from everything I'll gear up and lie one the ocean floor. Not doing anything other than lying back and watching my bubbles float up. I recommend it to anyone who wants to escape.
User avatar #20 - irishhappyposter (05/09/2013) [-]
but i has asthma :,(
#60 - alskan (05/09/2013) [-]
I have asthma too, and I still dive
#5 - angelious (05/09/2013) [-]
#56 - anonymous (05/09/2013) [-]
Sauce?
#21 - twelveleven (05/09/2013) [-]
Do you know what video that is from? I see it all the time.
#73 - asftrooper (05/09/2013) [-]
Finally, someone is honest! Thank you!
User avatar #84 - brehon (05/10/2013) [-]
actually a while back, i asked about this same thing and got NO response for a couple months, and someone found the comment and replied with the vid so thank notapancake for that
User avatar #94 - notapancake (05/10/2013) [-]
No problem mate!
#57 - anonymous (05/09/2013) [-]
Backdoor Sluts 9.
User avatar #52 - sonicschall (05/09/2013) [-]
Group Stronghold 2
#26 - anonymous (05/09/2013) [-]
If you see it all the time, you should know ^^
User avatar #64 - ilovehitler (05/09/2013) [-]
Are you an idiot?
You can see a clip of something without knowing where it's from.
#25 - angelious (05/09/2013) [-]
battletoads
#4 - scant (05/09/2013) [-]
#12 - Those are all just old and new understandings placed side by s…  [+] (103 new replies) 05/09/2013 on interesting -16
#156 - anonymous (05/09/2013) [-]
ok... ok. I need you to explain me how in THE FUCK does teaching something that doesn't make any fucking sense helps improving kids' morals.
Let's just tell them some bullshit so they can be retards alll their lifes, oh I forgot: they will be nice people.
>Implying that if kids want to fuck shit up they will remember that they do not come from monkeys and therefore they must be angels.
Getting real tired of your annoying shit you stubborn cunts.
User avatar #141 - traelos (05/09/2013) [-]
It's alright dude, I didn't read this whole thread but I just want you to know there's at least one other person in the world who understands what you mean.

It's ironic though, the ones who look back and go "those people were so dumb" are the ones who are being called dumb the next generation. A bit of historical irony.
User avatar #73 - redstonealchemist (05/09/2013) [-]
there's evidence that suggests many religions provide a healthy way to interact with your peers on a meaningful basis
what do wiccans and druids have in common? they both love the earth. instead of killing each other because beliefs have differences, why not protect each other for what our beliefs have in common?
also religion and atheism can cooperate if you think about it
User avatar #75 - Vandeekree (05/09/2013) [-]
I would agree with that.
User avatar #78 - redstonealchemist (05/09/2013) [-]
i have an interesting thought about religion: you see the human mind is capable of many strange, amazing and impossible things. a russian girl has x-ray vision, people can survive being thrown around like a nokia in a tornado, i saw a seemingly average child go for 70+ hours without food or water and survived, an old man had moved the pin in a compass a few degrees only using his mind and an extreme amount of concentration, i have predicted the future countless times and so have most of my friends...
whose to say that a god or group of gods isn't a psychic ability connecting like-minded people? therefore i have jsut provided a means in which religion is useful using science.
User avatar #81 - Vandeekree (05/09/2013) [-]
Because it doesn't address where those physic people or even where the matter that makes them up came from in the first place.
User avatar #85 - redstonealchemist (05/09/2013) [-]
from a christian perspective, you could say that god gave humans a basic ability of psychic ability that would allow you to feel his presence, i suppose you could use similar logic with a variety of religions. personally i'm an odinist but i believe in the big bang and i have a firm belief that in many cases religion is a primary metaphor for how the universe begins.
an interesting fact about Shinto is that their religion focuses on the birth of japan itself, therefore it is arguably extremely compatible with many religions and is most often shipped with the generally very gentle buddhism. in some cases you can even pair it with monotheistic religions such as christianity by treating the shinto gods as angels
User avatar #91 - Vandeekree (05/09/2013) [-]
Ok. I'm not entirely sure what that had to do with addressing creation but it is interesting. You can't say god is the culmination of minds but then say he created those culmination of minds because that would mean he existed at a point where those mind, of which he is a culmination, didn't exist.
User avatar #121 - redstonealchemist (05/09/2013) [-]
wow someone isn't happy... all of our comments have -2, that doesn't make any sense... i''ll thumb you up, can you thumb me up? hehe
#19 - anonymous (05/09/2013) [-]
Science says you can fill out the holes of knowledge with any assumption you like. It only says that its wrong to call a completly unproven story a fact.
User avatar #21 - Vandeekree (05/09/2013) [-]
Yes, but if that's the case then all that is required for something to become fact is for it to convince enough people. When it comes to science, there really aren't any facts, only "current understanding open to future change."
#24 - anonymous (05/09/2013) [-]
There are lot's of facts. We can measure all kind of things. It is a fact, that under current conditions, my ruler is about 35 cm long. Of course, nature has its rules, which we only partly understand as modells (simplyfies reality!) yet. The connections, in form of scientific laws, are therefore to be seen as theories (because they describe modells).
But those theories and laws are functionning that good (little deviations), that we can work with them. Newtons laws will function on earth as long mankind will exist and even if getting forgotten, it can be reinvented.
User avatar #27 - Vandeekree (05/09/2013) [-]
But the ruler example is not really a fact. Facts are hard to come by in reality. Now I might concede that it was observed that the ruler was 35cm long when you looked at it. But you and I are human(you are a human right?) and as such, can't really be sure of anything. Now don't get me wrong, in practice, there is no reason not to live as though the laws we have made up about this world will continue to hold, but we don't actually know they do. You say that ruler is 35cm long only because every time you measure it, it still appears to be 35cm. However, seeing as you nor I can predict the future, you can't be sure it will continue to be 35cm upon your next measurement.

If we look at to more broadly, we can't actually be sure that ruler is even there. You might perceive a ruler when in fact your brain has a flaw or is being chemically or electrically messed with to make you perceive a ruler that doesn't exist meaning that in fact, that ruler is not 35cm, it isn't even real.

Is that the truth? I doubt it. When you tell me you have a ruler that is 35cm I fully believe you without question and accept it as fact. But my point to all this(this is the important part) is that we can't KNOW for certain it's a fact even though we accept it.
#30 - herbvk (05/09/2013) [-]
I don't think you really understand how science works...

anyway if we can't be sure of anything, and everything is relative, it applies just as well to science as to religion. And science is a lot more humane and reliable than religion, so... yeah...
User avatar #33 - Vandeekree (05/09/2013) [-]
Are you sure? Religion has remained the same from it's start with only one revision while science changes constantly! (Yes, that was an attempted joke)

But I do understand how science works. It is a compilation of current observations that we've made. But actually it doesn't apply to religion because the source of religion(the right one at least) is the all knowing God. In fact, what he shows us is the only actual fact we know. Now we can't be sure that such knowledge came from God, but we can logically find that firstly there is a right religion using the logic of moral philosophy, and secondly which one is the true one by comparing them.

As far as science being reliable, yes, it is but only for the little things. Surly you can agree that there are areas where science gets nothing short of blurry.
#48 - herbvk (05/09/2013) [-]
But actually it doesn't apply to religion because the source of religion(the right one at least) is the all knowing God. In fact, what he shows us is the only actual fact we know.

That is circular logic.
User avatar #57 - Vandeekree (05/09/2013) [-]
No, it would be circular if i said that it is true because it says it's true. I said(or meant to say) that it is the only possible source of absolute truth, assuming it is true. That is to say that we will never get to a point where we can say that we are certain of something with science because we cannot test something infinitely. However God can. So if there is a god, then he is the only source of truth that can be relied on, mainly because if he were to give us truth, he would make it in a fashion we could "digest" and believe in, even if we can't know the truth ourselves.
User avatar #37 - RandomAnonGuy (05/09/2013) [-]
How does moral philosophy prove a god to be the correct one?
User avatar #42 - Vandeekree (05/09/2013) [-]
Because without God to let us know what true right and wrong is, then it is all arbitrary and made up based on how we feel at the time. because of this, there can be no absolute morality without God. Therefore, there is either a god, or there is nothing wrong with doing anything.
User avatar #45 - RandomAnonGuy (05/09/2013) [-]
Objectively, no. Subjectively, yes. As I said below, if that's scary, tough. The universe doesn't care.
User avatar #52 - Vandeekree (05/09/2013) [-]
Technically the universe doesn't care about anything ever. But it remains that we need a purpose else we simply wouldn't be.
#59 - anonymous (05/09/2013) [-]
sex?
User avatar #67 - Vandeekree (05/09/2013) [-]
It can't be sex because you can not have sex, but if you were to have a purpose, you couldn't not fulfill that purpose.
#92 - anonymous (05/09/2013) [-]
sex is a purpose of life. without sex, no life.
User avatar #96 - Vandeekree (05/09/2013) [-]
It does continue life yes, but it is not the purpose. It's not the end result because some people will never procreate, if that's the case did they fail at their purpose? The thing about a purpose is you can't fail at it because failing means you had no purpose.
User avatar #56 - RandomAnonGuy (05/09/2013) [-]
Also, please respond at #49 so we don't have the same argument in two places, might be easier.
User avatar #55 - RandomAnonGuy (05/09/2013) [-]
Why? Because you couldn't deal with it if it were otherwise?
#18 - herbvk (05/09/2013) [-]
I don't even know where to start

Religion is bad. (any religion, and no, atheism is not a religion)
Religion lost it's validity ages ago. Tell me one thing we need (in a civilized society) from religion.

Religion is ignoring proof so belief can be sustained, science is acknowledging proof so belief can be created. Being wrong is a good thing in science. So I'd say the counterpart of religion is science.

As to philosophy, it should be a scientific way approach to the questions science is not yet ready to answer. But it seems that it's just a way for lazy people not to actually go into science, but still be claiming to explain everything. Still way better than any religion.

Also the bible is wrong on many things, as science sees is today.

~Herbert von Kantenschwan

User avatar #20 - Vandeekree (05/09/2013) [-]
Well I really have to disagree that religion is bad. From what I can tell it does a lot of good. More good than the wrongs it is used as an excuse for but I suppose that's all opinion.

As for losing its validity I have to disagree again. Religion is what explains what is unknowable thanks to the intervention of a deity. Now that's not to say that all religions were started by an existing deity, but a higher power is required to have a solid base on which morality can be defined. Without something higher dictating right and wrong then your morality can only be based on what you feel is right at any given moment and thus is far to arbitrary, leaving room for literally anything to be called right or wrong.

Religion is not about ignoring proof. In fact many of the religions that make claims that were testable have died out. That leaves only the ones that contain a mix of truth and claims that we simply cannot prove nor disprove at the moment. But the bible and the men who claim to have witnessed what they did is evidence of those events. Could they have been fabricated? Yes. But so could every scientific article or peer reviewed journal that has been published. Being wrong is a good thing in both science and religion, but when there is a scientist with a theory that we don't have the ability to prove yet then is he criticized for holding onto the belief it's true?

Science observes the world around us while religion shows what the creator of this world revealed. Only when they contradict is there any friction. But try to remember that science states that literally everything we now hold as fact could be wrong. In effect, science deals in belief while religion deals in fact.
User avatar #38 - RandomAnonGuy (05/09/2013) [-]
"Without something higher dictating right and wrong then your morality can only be based on what you feel is right at any given moment and thus is far to arbitrary, leaving room for literally anything to be called right or wrong."
And that's scary. Doesn't make it false. The universe doesn't give two fucks about what you want to be true.
User avatar #46 - Vandeekree (05/09/2013) [-]
Yes, but you see, if there is no morality then there is no right and wrong and no consequence for doing anything. Without that then our actions mean nothing and we are purposeless. But i simply don't see how something without a purpose exists. Everything that has a beginning has to have been created.
User avatar #49 - RandomAnonGuy (05/09/2013) [-]
Lets just agree to merge the two morality debates we have starting and keep them here, okay?
"...if there is no morality"
Didn't say there wasn't, I said it wasn't objective. As a society, we can collectively agree that we don't like things, and to be a part of that society you have to comply to certain rules. If you don't comply, you will be punished. Don't like it, leave. This allows us to adapt and change based on what suits our situation better, which is far superior to "Herp derp lying is always bad"
User avatar #58 - Vandeekree (05/09/2013) [-]
But if you go by that model, then there could come a time when the majority is convinced that some minority is bad and simply wipe them out. What happens when everyone else agrees something is wrong that you think is ok and want to do but you have nowhere to go that would allow you to practice what you think is right?
User avatar #63 - RandomAnonGuy (05/09/2013) [-]
Then I try to change everyones mind. I argue and I push for change and I form groups and I do everything in my power to bring about change that makes my life better. That's what the civil rights movement was about. That's what the gay marriage thing is about. It's a part of human civilisation.
And in the extreme case that even an entire country decides to murder an ethnic minority, guess what happens? The entire planet gets pissed with them and they go down in history as some of the most evil people to exist. Remember Hitler?
User avatar #71 - Vandeekree (05/09/2013) [-]
But how can something be right or wrong if it can change? There is no backbone to that, it's all simply made up. It doesn't even exist. That's is people making up rules for no reason but because they want them in place.
And yes, I was referencing Hitler because look at the group of people who were convinced to kill all Jews. Now what if a slightly larger group all decided that was right? Instead of millions of Germans, how about a few billion people around the world? That moral system lets anything ever be right.

As for our other conversation that we're now moving down here.
It is because I couldn't deal with it. It makes no sense and there is no logic to it. There has to be a purpose or else we would not exist. There has to be morality because without it our actions mean nothing. There is no difference between living a good life or one of murder and debauchery. If out actions don't matter then we don't have free will. we're not even really choosing what we do. We're just the natural reaction all our atoms have when placed in the pattern that is us.
User avatar #77 - RandomAnonGuy (05/09/2013) [-]
Third or fourth time I've said it, just because it's scary it doesn't make it false. You might not like it, so you have to argue against it. Inventing a god to give yourself a base doesn't solve the problem any more than ignoring it.
And WHY does there have to be a purpose? You're saying it's illogical because you don't like it. You say for us to exist we must have a predetermined purpose, which I think is bullocks. There is no reason that we must have a reason to being here given from above.
User avatar #79 - Vandeekree (05/09/2013) [-]
Because it doesn't make logical sense that we don't have a reason to be here and yet we are. And by "us" I mean matter itself. Why does anything exist if it has no reason too? Purpose is required for existence. Things that are within time can't just be without having come from somewhere.
User avatar #84 - RandomAnonGuy (05/09/2013) [-]
"Purpose is required for existence."
Justify that statement.
User avatar #89 - Vandeekree (05/09/2013) [-]
A purpose is a reason to exist. Nothing exists without reason or else there would be no logic to anything. I have to admit, this assumes that this universe has a logic to it. That everything isn't random. I don't know how to deal with randomness as it doesn't make actual sense to me. There as to be a logic to everything even if I can't perceive it. If there isn't then I don't know how to react to anything because it all seems logical. hat being said, there must be a start to us sense there is a end. We change, thus we could, if we were able, look all the way back, watching the change in reverse. In doing so there has to be a start. A beginning where everything was simply made. Not just particles and atoms but the space they occupy. Back to a time before there was even space, when there was nothing. Nothing can't just spontaneously turn into something without something there to make it so. That would be God, without him, we would not be. In that way, we have purpose because without it, we never would have existed at all, nothing would. Purpose means there is a goal, an end or point that is to be reached. Without that, there is no movement. I hope I'm wording this coherently at least.
User avatar #95 - RandomAnonGuy (05/09/2013) [-]
That entire argument, besides being based on an appeal to emotion (And as I've explained, the universe doesn't care how you feel about something), just makes you run head on into the a paradox of infinite series.
And we have done that. We've gone as far back in time as we can with the data available to us, to within fractions of fractions of fractions of milliseconds. We don't know what happened at T = 0, but that's not a justification for "God did it"
Furthermore, why do you need a god to give you purpose? I love kids, I love science, so I decided to become a science teacher. It's my goal in life to help kids grow up, and to show them the wonder of the universe. Another goal is to die happy. Another goal is to find a woman to love. All of these were assigned to me, by me.
User avatar #98 - Vandeekree (05/09/2013) [-]
And those are wonderful goals, but you see a purpose is not a goal you can fail. If you fail your purpose then that means you had no purpose. So you can't fail. A purpose is not a goal, you can't strive for your purpose because it's something you have, not something you get. You fulfill it simply by having it.
And this is not an appeal to emotion. It doesn't matter if you want to have a purpose or if you are afraid of not having one. I'm not afraid of not having a purpose because if I had no purpose I would not exist. If purpose is not required to exist then why doesn't everything exist? By that i mean why is there not an infinite amount of things that all exist?
User avatar #100 - RandomAnonGuy (05/09/2013) [-]
Three responses, I'll order them as they come.
You're pushing yourself into a corner with that definition, but if it's what you want to work with then fine. What's the value in having a purpose, if you can't fail it? What's the value in life, if whatever you do fulfils your predetermined purpose?

You keep saying you wouldn't exist if you have a purpose, help me understand where you're coming from, fill in the blank.
I must have purpose, or I would not exist.
If I did not have a purpose, I would not exist because...?

"If purpose is not required to exist then why doesn't everything exist?"
Arguably it does, if you're into the multiverse hypothesis. Otherwise, because there are other prerequisites to existence. A predetermined purpose needn't be one of them.
User avatar #103 - Vandeekree (05/09/2013) [-]
Well that entirely depends on the purpose. The purpose as defined by Christian scriptures is that you will choose to do either right or wrong. You will choose to either accept God or reject him. Now you can't do anything but that, but your choice does effect your afterlife.

If you didn't have a purpose you wouldn't exist because you would not have been created. Something had to start you. Create the material you are made from and begin the star dust that eventual turns into you. It's pretty simple. Purpose means reason for existing. You wouldn't exist without reason. You are here because of the reason you are here(i.e. God) and without that reason you would not be here.

But the multiverse can't be true because infinity dictates that there would be a world in every world that destroys every other world and there would be a world for that world that remains undestroyed. Because of that it contradicts itself and defies logic.
User avatar #108 - RandomAnonGuy (05/09/2013) [-]
Didn't really answer my questions at the end, and don't even get me started on heaven and hell. At least, not tonight. I'm about to go to bed, don't have the time to explain why I think they're fundamentally flawed concepts.

And therein lies the problem. You're assuming we needed to be created, and specifically that we needed to be created by something. Now, justify that, because if you can't the entire thing collapses in on itself.

You keep using the word logic slightly wrong for this context, and it's erking me. As a rule of thumb, when you're arguing about the legitimacy of something, if it can't be put into a premise - conclusion format, it's not logic. And I agree on the infinity thing, it's a difficult concept for us to grasp. It's not possible for a pool of infinity things to be destroyed - but if there are infinity things then one of those would have found a way to do it. Thing is, you kind of ignored my actual point in favour of the thing beside it.
User avatar #112 - Vandeekree (05/09/2013) [-]
It's not an assumption. We exist so logically we had to come from somewhere. We had to have a start and a beginning because we have a progression. Purpose and creation go together. One requires the other. Nothing just exists within the context of time that doesn't have a reason for being there. i don't know how else to put it but something wouldn't exist if it didn't exist. it has to have something holding it together. it has to have that body and mass to it that makes it not only fill space but makes space itself. That is purpose. And it's not an assumption, it's a necessity. There is no logical way for us to exist without having been made. Without having a start. We were logically created because there is no alternative.

As for the heaven and hell thing I assume you will say something close to "no crime deserves an infinite punishment" is that close?

As for the point I apparently missed, you'll have to explain it to me again because it seems like more of the same. Everything does have to have a purpose to exist because otherwise either nothing or everything would exist. The purpose is the stopper that limits our world from being either "full" or "empty" for lack of better words.
User avatar #272 - RandomAnonGuy (05/10/2013) [-]
"Purpose and creation go together"
Maybe. Neither of them are inclusive to existence though, you've yet to explain why they do. You keep on repeating it as though that's the case and prefacing it with "Logically", which is wrong. It makes sense to you, yes. That doesn't make it logic.

Pretty much, yeah.

"Otherwise, because there are other prerequisites to existence. A predetermined purpose needn't be one of them."
You keep on stating that we must be created and that we must have a purpose, without justifying why. The only prerequisite for our existence is that other things exist. Those things interact in a way to simulate us. That doesn't need creation, even if it doesn't explain the origin of those things.
And us not knowing the absolute origin of something is not a "logical" reason that a god must exist either. All it proves is that we don't know.
User avatar #129 - kiratheunholy (05/09/2013) [-]
Buddy, you ARE using the word logic wrong. Please go look it up or something. I'm not arguing with you but I feel like you need a second person to tell you what he's already told you. You're not using the word correctly.
#26 - herbvk (05/09/2013) [-]
Religion does good, as do a lot of other things. We don't need it.

"Religion is what explains what is unknowable thanks to the intervention of a deity"
So it explains the unknowable with something unknowable... you see the circular logic there? it does not enhance anything hence, we don't need it.

"But a higher power is required to have a solid base on which morality can be defined."
We don't need a higher power. Morality is not arbitrary even without imaginary friends being involved, it is dynamic though.
Have you ever read a bible? It has some horrible passages. I'm quite glad our moral values do not come from there. And again, we don't need religion.
Morality is not about your feelings, it's basic rules about living in a society. A society with different challenges might have a different morality, but that doesn't make it arbitrary.

"But the bible and the men who claim to have witnessed what they did is evidence of those events. Could they have been fabricated? Yes. But so could every scientific article or peer reviewed journal that has been published."
I witnessed the lord of the rings happen in real time. Fun times.
Scientific papers can be fabricated, yes. But science is all about precisely predicting future events, and they have been damn good about it.
I don't see your bible predicting the weather or nuclear fission. It has proclaimed the end of the world though, for about 1000 years now.

" when there is a scientist with a theory that we don't have the ability to prove yet then is he criticized for holding onto the belief it's true? "
I pray you never see mathemathicians fight, it's one of the scariest things i've seen.

"But try to remember that science states that literally everything we now hold as fact could be wrong."
It does not. Science is an approximation to reality. It's not wrong, it's just not absolutely correct.

"In effect, science deals in belief while religion deals in fact."
you troll you ;)

~Herbert von Kantenschwan
User avatar #31 - Vandeekree (05/09/2013) [-]
You don't have to know all about something to gain knowledge from it. That was not actually circular logic. You can smelt metals to make a stronger one without understanding it's the new atomic structure that results in the alloy to make bronze or know that it's stronger than copper.

Yes, I actually have read the bible and I don't see what horrible things it has except at the parts where it shows not to do those horrible things. The bible says "an eye for an eye" at the place where it tells you NOT to do that. The bible tells of the Israelites taking over modern Israel ONLY when God directly said to do it.
And yes, people making up different codes of what is right and wrong is arbitrary. They create them based on how the group feels and a group of people deciding what they want to be right and wrong is just as arbitrary as a single person doing it. It's why some people say the death penalty is right and others say it's wrong. Are they both right or is it either definitively right or wrong? You simply can't have absolute morality without God to define said morality.

You did not witness the lord of the rings, you witnessed pixels on a screen, to say you actually saw an ork and not a man in makeup would be a lie.
And i agree it didn't specifically say anything about those two, but it did predict the rise and fall of Alexander the Great and foretold the return of Israel as a nation. Google it, the bible actually predicted a multitude of things. Many of which have come true with exact accuracy and some that are predictions of the future. It's quite interesting actually.

Yeah, I hear those kinds of altercations can cause division between good friends...(Oh come on that was funny! No? Ok, I'll stop...)

But if you're not absolutely correct you're most certainly not right. One of the principles of science is that any part of it can be corrected and updated based on new discoveries. Thus every part could, in fact, be wrong.
#44 - herbvk (05/09/2013) [-]
hi again :D

The problem is that as soon as Science explains something you people say "well that's how god intended it to be", so until we've explained everything there will still be a loophole for god

"That was not actually circular logic."
God can't be explained.
If god can't be explained, he defies logic.
if god defies logic, and can't be explained, it is unkown.
So if you answer anything with god, you've efectually answered with "I don't know".

"You simply can't have absolute morality without God to define said morality."
I agree completely, morality is not absolute. This is why you need a different set of rules when living in different conditions.

In what way is me saying I saw orks fighting people, and anybody saying jesus came back from the dead different?
As for the predictions of the future it's a bit difficult to say really, the bible is not specific, which makes it kinda easy to predict stuff.

"But if you're not absolutely correct you're most certainly not right. One of the principles of science is that any part of it can be corrected and updated based on new discoveries. Thus every part could, in fact, be wrong."
That is correct. Our models and scientific explainations might not be absolutely correct, but what we achieved with this kinda makes a strong point for science doesn't it?

Praying doesn't solve problems.
Science does.

~Herbert von Kantenschwan
User avatar #65 - Vandeekree (05/09/2013) [-]
True, but then if an all powerful being wanted to not be seen so directly would that not be the place of choice to hide? I wouldn't call it a loophole sense tat implies he's cheating somehow when in fact he simply stays out of our perception.

And there are parts of God that can be explained and parts that can't. Just because we can't see the big picture doesn't mean you're saying I don't know whenever you talk about God. But your explanation for why it's circular logic still doesn't even suggest at circular logic, only a logical fallacy.

But relative morality is arbitrary and can change to fit anything at all. all you have to do is convince yourself that killing babies so they don't have to suffer through life is right and suddenly you're doing nothing wrong? I think that's illogical. There is no morality besides absolute morality.

If you look at the predictions I think you will find it's pretty darn specific, far more specific than any other religion text.(that I've studied so far)

Yes, but also the weak point, because while that model allows you to get infinity close to the truth, it never actually lets you have a real absolute truth, only evidence that dances around it. Now that's fine when it comes to things we actually have so much proof of we can live our lives daily as though it is fact, but there are some things that we have virtually no proof of, there are places where science simply struggles do to our own physical limitations as humans.

And I would disagree. Science doesn't resolve problems, people do. If you study the bible, you are not supposed to ask for things when you pray. God is not a genie that you wish to. You can ask for strength and guidance, but if you want something done, God has given you the hands to do it.
User avatar #14 - RandomAnonGuy (05/09/2013) [-]
Ex nihilo creation vs Big Bang and Evolution? Still as valid as ever? Are you kidding?
#135 - anonymous (05/09/2013) [-]
>implying Big Bang isn't ex nihilo

bro do you even cosmology?
#119 - kingpongthedon (05/09/2013) [-]
Only if you take the Bible literally, which the vast majority of people don't. Arguing against a literal interpretation of the Bible just makes you look ignorant to the people you're actually arguing against.

As far as ex nihilo creation and the Big Bang go, they're essentially the same thing (something from nothing). Several of the Big Bang's developers were devout Catholics and the Church even uses the Big Bang as evidence for Creation and have some of the most advanced telescopes to verify this. On to evolution, when not taken literally, Genesis doesn't really say much more that God did it over an indefinite period of time, and evolution is just evidence of God's continuous involvement in Creation. Did it happen exactly 6000 years ago in seven days? No, but most people don't literally interpret the Bible anyway. When looked at this way, the only real difference is the initial cause, one says God and the other says shit-if-I-know.

I'm not religious myself, but to me, the whole idea that God did it just means that studying science is studying God, a task of devotion. The mechanisms will be the same regardless of whether or not God did it, and that's not really an answerable question. The same discoveries will be made regardless, only now there's a common goal between two groups that previously didn't see eye-to-eye, and science develops faster.

Regardless, the Abrahamic system (God created something from nothing over a period of time) are light-years better than every other religions' idea that everything always has been and always will be the exact same as it currently is.
User avatar #271 - RandomAnonGuy (05/10/2013) [-]
See, you're ignoring where we are.
We're on a post about the "Teach the controversy" thing.
That refers specifically to the brand of apologists that are trying to get their 6,000 year old idea of the universe taught in school as fact along the big bang theory and evolution.
You're perfectly right when you say not everyone believes that.
You're a bit of a dumbass when you call me out on being ignorant to who I'm arguing against.
No offence or anything.
#275 - kingpongthedon (05/10/2013) [-]
I assure you, most of the people arguing for Creation being taught are not 7 Day Creationists. Most people arguing for Creation couldn't give two shits about how long it took, so long as it's taught that God did it. If it were only 7 Day Creationists, there just wouldn't be enough support for it to be an actual issue. You can't just pick out small segments of the population against you and say they represent the entirety their opinion, you have to account for everybody.
User avatar #277 - RandomAnonGuy (05/10/2013) [-]
You're the first that I've run into to say anything of the like. Most of the people that think the current model of the universe is accurate and was facilitated by god don't care because they think the current model is accurate. Young Earth Creationists on the other hand are quite a large group, even if they don't have the evidence on their side. That's why the "Teach the controversy" debate is likened to magic against physics. Because it's bullshit.
User avatar #169 - crazyhindu (05/09/2013) [-]
well you're kinda right the big bang wasn't something from nothing it was an expansion of energy.
#276 - kingpongthedon (05/10/2013) [-]
It totally was something from nothing, there was no energy and then there suddenly was a lot of it. Even if you explain the Big Bang as an effect of M-theory or one of several other possibilities, you still have a first event coming out of nowhere, from nothing, at t=0.
User avatar #15 - Vandeekree (05/09/2013) [-]
Yes. As a matter of fact they complement each other to a degree. No one really knows a whole lot about the big bang, it's more of an event that is pointed to by a little but of observation and a whole lot of math. But that's not to say we have much detail about it. It is pretty much just the understanding based on the evidence that the universe seems to have expanded. Does that mean this is the point it was created at? No. But it doesn't mean it wasn't created here too. Could God have used this process to create the universe? Yes. In that way, creation from nothing can go along swimmingly with the big bang theory which really only boils down to "the universe expanded from a point." Creation does not mean that everything snapped into existence as it is now, simply that it was created from nothing. This is actually currently supported by some evidence that suggests there is actually a sum of zero when all the energy, both normal and anti-energy, is added together, meaning that it is possible that everything started from nothing. It is also possible that it was God that made the universe from nothing.
User avatar #35 - RandomAnonGuy (05/09/2013) [-]
I'm back and can now reply.
Ex nihilo creation refers to the 6000 year old universe/earth thing, and is what the "Teach both sides" thing is about. There are no biology classrooms where a teacher will say "This is how evolution happened and it was not guided by god", there are no physics classrooms where a teacher will say "The universe expanded from a singularity ~14 billion years ago, and was not done by a god."
User avatar #39 - Vandeekree (05/09/2013) [-]
I looked it up to make sure and ex nihilo is not specifically the 6000 year old theory. All ex nihilo means is "creation from nothing" and while there are those that believe it happened suddenly at 6000 years ago, all Christians believe in ex nihilo even if they think it's 6000 years ago or started 15 billion years ago.

But I agree with the last part. That was my point to a degree. The argument that God should be mentioned in school is petty sense no part of our current understanding of the universe timeline includes "also this wasn't done by God."
User avatar #41 - RandomAnonGuy (05/09/2013) [-]
My mistake, I meant something more along the lines of "As I was using it, Ex nihilo creation refers to..." yadda yadda yadda.
User avatar #47 - Vandeekree (05/09/2013) [-]
Well please try to be specific with me because I'm clearly not smart enough to grasp it without you spelling it out for me. Anyway it was nice talking to you.
User avatar #51 - RandomAnonGuy (05/09/2013) [-]
We're still talking, if you haven't noticed I'm the same guy commenting on like three different strains right now :P
User avatar #60 - Vandeekree (05/09/2013) [-]
Yes, i wasn't saying goodbye, only that I've enjoyed it
User avatar #61 - RandomAnonGuy (05/09/2013) [-]
Oh. Well apparently you have to spell out things for me too or I'll get it wrong.
#16 - anonymous (05/09/2013) [-]
Tide goes in, tide goes out. You can't explain that.
User avatar #17 - Vandeekree (05/09/2013) [-]
Was this a serious reply or am I being mocked?

No, I'm not smart enough to tell on my own, haha
User avatar #83 - RandomAnonGuy (05/09/2013) [-]
I can't reply to you anymore down the bottom there, so I'll copy paste your comment here and respond to it so you know what I'm talking about.
"And I have to ask, how do you know that? Have you seriously done enough experimentation or understand enough about not only physical laws but also every mechanism of this reality that you can tell me it's simply not possible?"

I haven't, no. But they have been done. We know very well how this universe works, at least in our situation, and the mechanics thereof exclude scenarios like yours. You can postulate an unknown force if you like, but physicists are just going to laugh at you.
User avatar #86 - Vandeekree (05/09/2013) [-]
And I have to say that's terribly wrong. We know very little about this world we live in. How it works, its mechanisms. We are tragically in the dark. And trust me when I say studies like that have not been done because they would require more time than computers have been around and, sense i work with computers I can confidently say we don't have a computer than can even come close to simulating what would be required to say such a circumstance could never occur. I don't think you understand how big the scenario I'm proposing is. I'm not saying there is an unknown variable outside of our current understanding of physics. It would all be fully within even the laws we currently observe. Something planned from the beginning of Earth's creation. it wouldn't be that difficult to setup such a scenario.
User avatar #88 - RandomAnonGuy (05/09/2013) [-]
We have problems understanding the very small. We have problems understanding the very fast. We have problems understanding the very hot and the very cold. We have problems understanding huge pressures, huge densities, and huge numbers of variables. I'm not denying that. But when it comes to the temperatures, speeds, pressures, densities and other various natures of our world, we know them very well. We have equations to predict how much ice over how much surface area you'd need to keep a man afloat. We have equations to predict how much energy you'd need to leech from a body of water to turn it to ice. We can predict how much upward swell you'd need to lift a man, and how much upward swell would break a sheet of ice of whatever thickness. None of these converge on a single point where it'd be a physical possibility, I can tell you that in confidence.
User avatar #93 - Vandeekree (05/09/2013) [-]
And i think you simply can't. I don't think you are thinking large enough and i honestly don't know how to get you too. If I give a small example you pick it apart literally as though I'm talking about it and not just using it as an example. If i give a large example you tell me it is impossible as though you somehow know all possible outcomes that this Earth can make out of it's atoms. I promise I'm not trying to insult, but I think you think you know more than you really do because there is no possible way you can account for all circumstances.
User avatar #97 - RandomAnonGuy (05/09/2013) [-]
You don't need to know all circumstances to eliminate certain scenarios. I don't know how many digits (153,632x765,127)^2 has, but I can eliminate two as a possibility because it's not compatible with our math. I can eliminate a man being suspended above water spontaneously because he's too dense, ice is too fragile and it's physically impossible for it to form anyway. This isn't simple probability, we're talking about how molecules act under certain conditions, and forming a solid structure to stand on is not something water at room temperature is capable of doing.
User avatar #99 - Vandeekree (05/09/2013) [-]
Ok, yes, my one example might not work. But you are missing the entire point. it was an example, made up by me, in my brain. As in it has no connection to the real world besides me substituting it in to try and get you to see the world is so complex you cannot know that that thing could not happen. You very arrogantly think you do, but you don't. i don't know how you can think you can see every possibility when you don't even know all the rules of this world. Yes you know a few, but only one by one such as how strong ice is or how buoyant. But you can't even imagine(unless you are a lot smarter than me) how those factors might inter connect to create the right circumstances. There are a million billion factors involved that all could effect one another at the same time leading to a multiplicative of that many new factors that could be effecting the situation. I don't see how you think you can know that by even the most optimistic of counts.
User avatar #102 - RandomAnonGuy (05/09/2013) [-]
Did you see the latest men in black movie, where there was that guy that lives in the fourth dimension? Can see every variation of human history in the spot that he happens to be standing? At one point, he goes on a monologue about how a baseball player got a particular baseball, where the stitching was slightly off, so he hit it two microns lower than he would have, and consequently hit it out of the park. That's a domino effect that's physically possible. However, in the case of Jesus walking on water, there's two things that could effect him without us knowing for sure about it. The air, and the water. If the air was to lift him, the friction and/or compression would have torn his skin off and possibly set him on fire. If it was the water, we've already come across the problems there. If it was both, it wouldn't have been enough. To suspend a person above a surface without it being visibly apparent to the observer requires strong sleight of hand or a miracle.
You're trying to account for miracles that were designed to contradict nature, using nature. It's not a matter of probability, there are no known forces that could have done it. It was either a magic trick, or magic. If it happened at all.
User avatar #106 - Vandeekree (05/09/2013) [-]
There is no reason i has to contradict nature. And the air and water is a painfully simple summery of the forces at work. How about time, how about gravity and temperature and momentum and friction and countless other variable that all effect every atom at that moment.
User avatar #109 - RandomAnonGuy (05/09/2013) [-]
Gravity, temperature and momentum are the fundamental problems. Gravity is a constant, the water is either frozen or not, Jesus' momentum he gains from falling is kind of what's stopping him from floating. Friction is what's killing him with the air and what's breaking the ice.
User avatar #110 - Vandeekree (05/09/2013) [-]
But I'm not just talking about the time in which he does it, there is also every one of these factors in the time from of all time leading up to that moment.
User avatar #273 - RandomAnonGuy (05/10/2013) [-]
Just ignore the domino effect you're thinking about and focus on the problem as it is.
The question is whether or not it's physically possible, using all of natures forces and abilities, to support a man on the surface of water in a way that is not apparent to the observer, and is not intentional deception on his part (Glass under the water, for example) and the fact is that it's simply not. There is no way that the water, air, or universe in general could behave that would allow that.
#22 - anonymous (05/09/2013) [-]
you're being mocked, sorry. (look it up on youtube)

Point i was trying to make is, that if you don't understand something, there might still be people understanding more of it. Science is a battle, so don't think of scientist as a unity. If they are all wrong and someone can prove it, you can bet your ass he will. That's what makes you famous.
User avatar #23 - Vandeekree (05/09/2013) [-]
While I did miss that from your first comment(yes, you have to spell it out for me, I can be very slow sometimes) but in that context, prove only means "able to convince others." Now i understand there must be evidence presented, but that still leaves it open that that evidence, no matter how solid it looks, could be flawed or even completely wrong based on the actual facts.

What i mean is that I agree, science is a battle that happens constantly in the scientific community, but, in this context, victory doesn't always means fact has been attained. Yes everyone might come to a consensus, but our understanding of how things work isn't flawless and we have yet to reach a point where we can claim it will ever be flawless. It's good to trust the things qualified scientists find about their fields, but there has yet to be anything definitive to contradict the bible and yet some people act as though science has updated claims in the bible when in fact it has only either supported those claims, or we have been unable to find a way to actually test claims. So should religion be dropped? No, not unless there is evidence that shows flaw in the bible.(That implies Christianity is the correct path of course sense it's the only one I've found to be flawless)
#122 - anonymous (05/09/2013) [-]
Stop trying to justify christianity and other religions. You somewhat speak of relevant matters, such as the existance of endless amounts of rules and truths which we are unaware of, but every serious scientist is aware of this, and the whole point of science is to find truth based on what can be proven or applied in reality. The point where science differs from religion is that the scientific view changes constantly with new evidence, and it always has the basic awareness that nothing is absolute. Religions like christianity are full of flaws, and if you want to believe in a god of any kind then sure do so, but at the very least question this god, and it's actions and if it has feelings and so on. And above all, question when humans claim to have knowledge of that which can be never known. The creation of earth and humans in the bible is absurd, and it just proves how ridiculously highly humans think of themselves. If any god exists it sure has nothing of the sort to do with us
#25 - anonymous (05/09/2013) [-]
Really?
Jesus walking on water, respawning and shit. Methusalem getting 968 years old, rape isn't viewed as a crime, noah building a boat for every lifeform, adam and eve.
User avatar #28 - Vandeekree (05/09/2013) [-]
Yes, all of those things could happen. And if we could go back and see how it happened, I would actually be willing to bet it was less magical and more extraneous circumstances directed by an all knowing God.

What I mean by that is that everything that happened in the bible can be called "unlikely" but not necessarily impossible. Jesus could have physically occupied the space above the oceans surface. What kept him there? I don't know, but if God had spun the world in just the right way that exactly 4 trillion years from the moment the earth started spinning there would be a phenomenon that the Earth's gravity and molecular tension of the water aligned to cause the water to be able to hold the weight of a man right where Jesus was standing, then it was less magical and more just us unable to see how God did it. (Yes, that was an example, please don't pick it apart because I made it up entirely. Please look at the point, not my bs physics lecture haha)
User avatar #36 - RandomAnonGuy (05/09/2013) [-]
If god span the Earth at that rate it would have caused a second flood.
User avatar #40 - Vandeekree (05/09/2013) [-]
At what rate? I wasn't talking about him actually spinning it. Only meant that as a metaphor for when he first created the Earth. So I'm afraid I don't see what you're talking about.
User avatar #43 - RandomAnonGuy (05/09/2013) [-]
"God had spun the world in just the right way that exactly 4 trillion years from the moment the earth started spinning there would be a phenomenon that the Earth's gravity and molecular tension of the water aligned to cause the water to be able to hold the weight of a man right where Jesus was standing"
If the Earth was spinning fast enough for that to happen, water would be launched kilometres inland when it returned to "normal"
User avatar #50 - Vandeekree (05/09/2013) [-]
Ok, please reread what i wrote in parenthesis because you are taking my example literally. All I was saying is that it is possible God set up the dominoes so that when Jesus stepped out onto the water it would hold him. How did he do that? I haven't the foggiest. My point was simply that it could have happened in a way we don't fully understand without ever breaking a single rule of physics.
User avatar #53 - RandomAnonGuy (05/09/2013) [-]
My point is that if something extraordinary was done to make it happen, it would have an extraordinary consequence. It's actually easier to defend it if you just say it was magic rather than trying to justify it with physics.
User avatar #62 - Vandeekree (05/09/2013) [-]
Because I don't believe in magic. I think everything that happens is done so in a way that can be understood if you could see all the "parts" of what caused it. But who said it was an extraordinarily big thing? What if it was merely extraordinarily complex but also tiny? Something molecular where the stars aligned and everything fell into place to create the effect God set the dominoes that are the atoms that make us into falling into?
User avatar #64 - RandomAnonGuy (05/09/2013) [-]
You're pretty much describing water becoming solid for a few seconds, which is impossible. It kind of breaks thermodynamics.
User avatar #68 - Vandeekree (05/09/2013) [-]
Is it actually impossible though? You know for a fact that under no circumstances could something like that happen? If you could see every atom from the beginning up to now and how they interact you don't think you could formulate a way to setup the conditions for that to happen at the moment you wanted?
User avatar #74 - RandomAnonGuy (05/09/2013) [-]
Yeah. Every molecule is constantly in motion, if it hits the surface it either bounces off or escapes and turns into a gas. For it to condense on one point and bind into a crystalline form, it would need to lose energy, which means Jesus would have to be very very cold.
User avatar #76 - Vandeekree (05/09/2013) [-]
I don't think you understand how complex this world is. You seem to be way over simplifying it if you think you can just simulate all the scenarios in your head.

But let me try a simple example. Could you not see that it was possible that Jesus could have been standing on a block of ice that was submerged under the water? I don't think that's how it happened but is that out of the realm of belief?
User avatar #80 - RandomAnonGuy (05/09/2013) [-]
It isn't possible, there's too many problems with it. Unless you're talking about him standing on a glacier, we're talking about suspending gravity so that the ice could support his weight and suspending thermodynamics so that it could form.
User avatar #82 - Vandeekree (05/09/2013) [-]
And I have to ask, how do you know that? Have you seriously done enough experimentation or understand enough about not only physical laws but also every mechanism of this reality that you can tell me it's simply not possible?
#32 - anonymous (05/09/2013) [-]
some of those things i mentioned are possible, if newtons laws are wrong. So all you have to prove that this is possible.

And the universe we can observe is 46,6 lightyears "big". When looking at an objekt far away, we see it's past. We are able to observe things now, that happened shortly after the beginning. We understand how all went from milliseconds after the big bang till today. We already found earthlike planets, but they are too far away.
We go also smaller with quantum-science. We are learning how the parts of an atom are build up and sometimes in the future we all will have quantum-computers. (There are working prototypes).
However, we did not see one single proof or even hint of any god's existence. That is why science isn't interested in religion, while the scientist may be.
User avatar #34 - Vandeekree (05/09/2013) [-]
See, now that's too absolute. You don't have to prove that newton's laws are wrong. Only that they don't always hold or possibly that they can simply be bent to make it look like they are being broken when in reality everything is mathematically sound, it's just that we can't see it. Like a magic trick where something that doesn't look possible is done through a method we can't perceive.

And I must disagree. Science is interested in everything. Just because God is not tangible doesn't mean the people who "do science" aren't looking for the opportunity to get God inside a test tube. But did you think you would look through a big enough telescope and see the back of God's head as he sits in space? God is not big, he is infinite. That means if he doesn't want us to see him, we simply won't. Surely you can't tell me you believe that absence of proof equals disproof?

Yes we can see and do all of that you said, but does that change the fact religion is still as relevant as ever? yes we have high tech computers and we can pick up every bit of light that is reaching our telescope lens, but if anything, that shows just how primitive our technology is, we don't actually understand much of anything, so far, we've only started to make the rocks we make tools out of so small we impressed ourselves.

#54 - anonymous (05/09/2013) [-]
so jesus was a good illusionist?
User avatar #66 - Vandeekree (05/09/2013) [-]
No, Jesus could predict the future. God would set miracles in motion and Jesus would simply be where he needed to be when they took place. Just because the fishermen couldn't see the sub atom vortex that pushed up enough to create the lift(yes, made that up) that Jesus was standing on when he walked on water doesn't mean he was fooling them, he was still standing on the water.
#90 - anonymous (05/09/2013) [-]
you use words, but you don't know their meaning
User avatar #94 - Vandeekree (05/09/2013) [-]
Would you mind pointing out what words I don't understand?
#150 - But that's not what I'm talking about. I don't mean you harden… 05/06/2013 on More from mr CK 0
#147 - But when it comes to being offended it doesn't matter what oth…  [+] (2 new replies) 05/06/2013 on More from mr CK 0
#149 - kingpongthedon (05/06/2013) [-]
I'm going to be offended regardless, I can choose not to get upset about it or not to hold a grudge, but being offended is a gut-reaction, it's not a rational processed thought, and it never will be completely. Regardless, no matter how hardened you are, it's still going to hurt. I mean, if I hit Mayweather in the face, it's still gonna hurt him, no matter how much he's adapted to it. It won't hurt nearly as bad as when he returns the favor, but part of being human is feeling pain, whether emotional of physical, and you can't just think pain away, you can take your mind off it, but it'll still be there.

Also, there are ways of insulting everything, e.g. Pretty-boy and nerd for handsome and intelligent, respectively.
User avatar #150 - Vandeekree (05/06/2013) [-]
But that's not what I'm talking about. I don't mean you harden yourself to handle the blow of an insult, I mean you can simply convince yourself that you are not in the wrong and thus no insult can cause such a gut reaction. It's sort of like instead of taking a punch and being able to endure the pain, you simply avoid the blow and never get hit at all.

What I mean is, being called "Pretty boy" has the implication that you are effeminate. But if that guy is a handsome navy seal who considers himself to be more above averagely masculine then that insult would make him smirk. And if the smart guy gets called a nerd in the most negative of insults but he is one of those guys who labels himself as a nerd and likes that about himself, then the insult becomes a complement.

So yes, you can take the pain away by simply not letting yourself be bothered by such things. All you have to do is purge yourself of those insecurities and be happy with yourself and you can never be offended.
#142 - Whether or not being black is good or bad has nothing to do wi…  [+] (4 new replies) 05/06/2013 on More from mr CK 0
#146 - kingpongthedon (05/06/2013) [-]
Being black being bad (sounds weird, but whatever) is the entire reason the word "nigger" has power (same is true with every other offensive term). There is a truth to the statement, and that's what causes the sting, it's a reminder that there is still a stigma about your race or background (lower-class white, myself) and inequality between you and the rest of the world. It's not that what you are is wrong, it's that the world sees what you are as wrong, and you have experienced actual pain as a result of that perception. It doesn't matter whether or not it's justified, if the world sees me as white trash, that's all I'll ever amount to. It's a reminder of all the bullshit you've already gone through, most of it painful. It's not the word itself, it's the memories the word brings up, and those words are meant to bring up those memories. If you don't have the memories to begin with you can't fully understand why it's offensive to bring them up. You can't choose not bring those memories up, because that's an integral part to what the word means. Pick any word and when you say it, you'll think about more than just it's dictionary definition, you'll think about all your experiences with that word. It's not possible to just not get offended when offensive speech is used.

But even if you used an incorrect insult, I'd still be offended, because I'm an emotionally developed human being. As a human being, I want to be liked, it's hard-wired into our brains. When you express dislike for me, thoughts are processed, chemicals are released, and I feel like shit. It's a basic part of human emotions, if you aren't upset when people express discontent towards you, something is severely wrong with you. Furthermore, I'm offended for all the people you used as an insult. Empathy is a pretty basic part of being a human, if you can't see why you shouldn't throw a few billion people under the bus, then your emotional development is severely stunted.
User avatar #147 - Vandeekree (05/06/2013) [-]
But when it comes to being offended it doesn't matter what others think. It doesn't matter if every single person on Earth thinks you are white trash. It only matters what you think, what you let effect you. Nothing on the outside can get to you unless you internalize it. You choose to care what those people think of you, there is nothing inherent about it. If you believe yourself to be valuable then no amount of other people telling you otherwise can change it. But if you see reason to think they are right then you begin to believe it, you begin to see there might be truth to what they say and that's what causes offence.

That is what makes you able to simply control if you are offended or not. Words have no power besides the power you give them. Being offended comes from insecurity in something. There is a reason insults are often aimed at short comings. If you want to get to someone you insult their social standing or their physical flaws, you have to aim for the things they themselves believe are negative things. You'll never offend someone by hatefully saying they are handsome or angrily telling them they have a high I.Q.

So yes, you choose to be offended by letting yourself accept short comings and allowing those words to devalue you in your own mind.
#149 - kingpongthedon (05/06/2013) [-]
I'm going to be offended regardless, I can choose not to get upset about it or not to hold a grudge, but being offended is a gut-reaction, it's not a rational processed thought, and it never will be completely. Regardless, no matter how hardened you are, it's still going to hurt. I mean, if I hit Mayweather in the face, it's still gonna hurt him, no matter how much he's adapted to it. It won't hurt nearly as bad as when he returns the favor, but part of being human is feeling pain, whether emotional of physical, and you can't just think pain away, you can take your mind off it, but it'll still be there.

Also, there are ways of insulting everything, e.g. Pretty-boy and nerd for handsome and intelligent, respectively.
User avatar #150 - Vandeekree (05/06/2013) [-]
But that's not what I'm talking about. I don't mean you harden yourself to handle the blow of an insult, I mean you can simply convince yourself that you are not in the wrong and thus no insult can cause such a gut reaction. It's sort of like instead of taking a punch and being able to endure the pain, you simply avoid the blow and never get hit at all.

What I mean is, being called "Pretty boy" has the implication that you are effeminate. But if that guy is a handsome navy seal who considers himself to be more above averagely masculine then that insult would make him smirk. And if the smart guy gets called a nerd in the most negative of insults but he is one of those guys who labels himself as a nerd and likes that about himself, then the insult becomes a complement.

So yes, you can take the pain away by simply not letting yourself be bothered by such things. All you have to do is purge yourself of those insecurities and be happy with yourself and you can never be offended.
#132 - I never said the method of criticism is effective. In fact I w…  [+] (6 new replies) 05/06/2013 on More from mr CK 0
#139 - kingpongthedon (05/06/2013) [-]
There are some very good reasons that being black is not a good thing in our society: even after accounting for other factors, lower incomes, higher conviction rates, less access to decent education, higher unemployment, etc are all prime examples of this. Trust me, well educated, highly successful black people are just as, if not more offended by the use of the word "nigger" and what it represents (and it represents a whole lot), as they are the ones who have experienced it at all levels. They are aware of how simply being born black can be a detriment in our society, and the use of the word nigger as an insult is testament to that inequality, whether you're successful or not.

On to B. All words absolutely have power, even if they are not true. Would I be offended on a personal level by your attack? No, but as hurtful/hateful speech was your intent, I'd know that you weren't a person who is going to push the discussion anywhere positive. Overall though, I would be slightly offended, as it was a personal attack, regardless of the validity of the statement. If you only interpret language literally, you're missing most of the action.
User avatar #142 - Vandeekree (05/06/2013) [-]
Whether or not being black is good or bad has nothing to do with our discussion. Something being good or bad in reality has nothing to do with whether or not a person will be offended by it, it all hinges on if they THINK they are being told something they are or are doing is wrong.

But it still stands that you are choosing to be offended. i have no idea what race you are but lets say I call you a chink and you are white. Would that offend you even if i said it out of pure hate? It shouldn't. You should be able to think for yourself that my insult makes no sense and there is no truth to it. You choose to let it effect you. So there has to be truth behind and insult in order for it to have power over you you don't give it. Now if you were white and i called you white trash then you have no defense against it sense the insult requires you to stop and think if you actually do qualify as white trash. Sense you are white then there is a chance that you are white trash, it's possible. However if you are white then it is literally impossible for you to be a "chink" whatever that means because one of the perquisites is that you are asian.

If i call you a chink then you only have to deal with my hate, that you choose to get offended at, but when i call you white trash you have to deal with both my hate and a possible truth. In that way, words do not always have power, only words that carry the semblance of truth.
#146 - kingpongthedon (05/06/2013) [-]
Being black being bad (sounds weird, but whatever) is the entire reason the word "nigger" has power (same is true with every other offensive term). There is a truth to the statement, and that's what causes the sting, it's a reminder that there is still a stigma about your race or background (lower-class white, myself) and inequality between you and the rest of the world. It's not that what you are is wrong, it's that the world sees what you are as wrong, and you have experienced actual pain as a result of that perception. It doesn't matter whether or not it's justified, if the world sees me as white trash, that's all I'll ever amount to. It's a reminder of all the bullshit you've already gone through, most of it painful. It's not the word itself, it's the memories the word brings up, and those words are meant to bring up those memories. If you don't have the memories to begin with you can't fully understand why it's offensive to bring them up. You can't choose not bring those memories up, because that's an integral part to what the word means. Pick any word and when you say it, you'll think about more than just it's dictionary definition, you'll think about all your experiences with that word. It's not possible to just not get offended when offensive speech is used.

But even if you used an incorrect insult, I'd still be offended, because I'm an emotionally developed human being. As a human being, I want to be liked, it's hard-wired into our brains. When you express dislike for me, thoughts are processed, chemicals are released, and I feel like shit. It's a basic part of human emotions, if you aren't upset when people express discontent towards you, something is severely wrong with you. Furthermore, I'm offended for all the people you used as an insult. Empathy is a pretty basic part of being a human, if you can't see why you shouldn't throw a few billion people under the bus, then your emotional development is severely stunted.
User avatar #147 - Vandeekree (05/06/2013) [-]
But when it comes to being offended it doesn't matter what others think. It doesn't matter if every single person on Earth thinks you are white trash. It only matters what you think, what you let effect you. Nothing on the outside can get to you unless you internalize it. You choose to care what those people think of you, there is nothing inherent about it. If you believe yourself to be valuable then no amount of other people telling you otherwise can change it. But if you see reason to think they are right then you begin to believe it, you begin to see there might be truth to what they say and that's what causes offence.

That is what makes you able to simply control if you are offended or not. Words have no power besides the power you give them. Being offended comes from insecurity in something. There is a reason insults are often aimed at short comings. If you want to get to someone you insult their social standing or their physical flaws, you have to aim for the things they themselves believe are negative things. You'll never offend someone by hatefully saying they are handsome or angrily telling them they have a high I.Q.

So yes, you choose to be offended by letting yourself accept short comings and allowing those words to devalue you in your own mind.
#149 - kingpongthedon (05/06/2013) [-]
I'm going to be offended regardless, I can choose not to get upset about it or not to hold a grudge, but being offended is a gut-reaction, it's not a rational processed thought, and it never will be completely. Regardless, no matter how hardened you are, it's still going to hurt. I mean, if I hit Mayweather in the face, it's still gonna hurt him, no matter how much he's adapted to it. It won't hurt nearly as bad as when he returns the favor, but part of being human is feeling pain, whether emotional of physical, and you can't just think pain away, you can take your mind off it, but it'll still be there.

Also, there are ways of insulting everything, e.g. Pretty-boy and nerd for handsome and intelligent, respectively.
User avatar #150 - Vandeekree (05/06/2013) [-]
But that's not what I'm talking about. I don't mean you harden yourself to handle the blow of an insult, I mean you can simply convince yourself that you are not in the wrong and thus no insult can cause such a gut reaction. It's sort of like instead of taking a punch and being able to endure the pain, you simply avoid the blow and never get hit at all.

What I mean is, being called "Pretty boy" has the implication that you are effeminate. But if that guy is a handsome navy seal who considers himself to be more above averagely masculine then that insult would make him smirk. And if the smart guy gets called a nerd in the most negative of insults but he is one of those guys who labels himself as a nerd and likes that about himself, then the insult becomes a complement.

So yes, you can take the pain away by simply not letting yourself be bothered by such things. All you have to do is purge yourself of those insecurities and be happy with yourself and you can never be offended.
#106 - I see your point but I think you miss his. The discussion is i…  [+] (8 new replies) 05/06/2013 on More from mr CK +1
#127 - kingpongthedon (05/06/2013) [-]
Well, if the fat person just sees the person as an asshole, they're not going to see a reason, to change because that dude's an asshole, he doesn't matter, but if he's told "Hey, you might want to watch your weight for reasons a,b,c" they'll be much more inclined to get that internal discussion moving in a positive direction.

Regardless, I don't think internal discussion was at all what he meant. His go-example is the use of the word "nigger". First off, tell me what the nigger (here meaning any black person, as that is to whom it is intended to be offensive) did wrong and what they can do to fix it. CK's answer is just to not be offended, because words have no power. That's absolute bullshit; not only is the vast majority of human success built on the power of language, but CK, himself, has established an entire career on his ability to use words. Do you see the hypocrisy there?

Words are tools. Offensive language can occasionally be a very useful tool, but it's meant for very specific occasions. It's a pneumatic hammer, loud, powerful, etc. It's useful, but it should not be your primary tool. It's something you use to make up for your own ability to hammer a point through.
User avatar #132 - Vandeekree (05/06/2013) [-]
I never said the method of criticism is effective. In fact I would say it's not the person they are insulting's well being they have in mind when saying such things.

When you call a black person a nigger then you are implying that what they are doing wrong is simply being black, you are saying being black is a bad thing, and because of the social norms of our society, black people who get offended over it do so because they have doubts that being black might somehow actually be a bad thing. This works like my fat person example, if you call a black man in a suit and tie who is the CEO of a major corporation a nigger he will probably look at you funny and think you are a sad racist. But if you call a poor drunk man a nigger he will get offended because you are saying there is something bad about his skin color and he sees that it might just be true and so get upset.

As for the second part, i would agree with him, simply don't get offended. You see, not all words have power, only true words have power. or more specifically, words that you can make someone think are true. If I started calling you a bunch of insults like chink and nigger and white trash and every racial slur, then would the racial slurs that refer to the races you aren't have any effect on you? Of course not(I hope) because there is no truth in your mind that, even if being other races was a bad thing, you are not that race, and so I can't be saying anything about you is bad. People only get offended at things that are to some degree, true.
#139 - kingpongthedon (05/06/2013) [-]
There are some very good reasons that being black is not a good thing in our society: even after accounting for other factors, lower incomes, higher conviction rates, less access to decent education, higher unemployment, etc are all prime examples of this. Trust me, well educated, highly successful black people are just as, if not more offended by the use of the word "nigger" and what it represents (and it represents a whole lot), as they are the ones who have experienced it at all levels. They are aware of how simply being born black can be a detriment in our society, and the use of the word nigger as an insult is testament to that inequality, whether you're successful or not.

On to B. All words absolutely have power, even if they are not true. Would I be offended on a personal level by your attack? No, but as hurtful/hateful speech was your intent, I'd know that you weren't a person who is going to push the discussion anywhere positive. Overall though, I would be slightly offended, as it was a personal attack, regardless of the validity of the statement. If you only interpret language literally, you're missing most of the action.
User avatar #142 - Vandeekree (05/06/2013) [-]
Whether or not being black is good or bad has nothing to do with our discussion. Something being good or bad in reality has nothing to do with whether or not a person will be offended by it, it all hinges on if they THINK they are being told something they are or are doing is wrong.

But it still stands that you are choosing to be offended. i have no idea what race you are but lets say I call you a chink and you are white. Would that offend you even if i said it out of pure hate? It shouldn't. You should be able to think for yourself that my insult makes no sense and there is no truth to it. You choose to let it effect you. So there has to be truth behind and insult in order for it to have power over you you don't give it. Now if you were white and i called you white trash then you have no defense against it sense the insult requires you to stop and think if you actually do qualify as white trash. Sense you are white then there is a chance that you are white trash, it's possible. However if you are white then it is literally impossible for you to be a "chink" whatever that means because one of the perquisites is that you are asian.

If i call you a chink then you only have to deal with my hate, that you choose to get offended at, but when i call you white trash you have to deal with both my hate and a possible truth. In that way, words do not always have power, only words that carry the semblance of truth.
#146 - kingpongthedon (05/06/2013) [-]
Being black being bad (sounds weird, but whatever) is the entire reason the word "nigger" has power (same is true with every other offensive term). There is a truth to the statement, and that's what causes the sting, it's a reminder that there is still a stigma about your race or background (lower-class white, myself) and inequality between you and the rest of the world. It's not that what you are is wrong, it's that the world sees what you are as wrong, and you have experienced actual pain as a result of that perception. It doesn't matter whether or not it's justified, if the world sees me as white trash, that's all I'll ever amount to. It's a reminder of all the bullshit you've already gone through, most of it painful. It's not the word itself, it's the memories the word brings up, and those words are meant to bring up those memories. If you don't have the memories to begin with you can't fully understand why it's offensive to bring them up. You can't choose not bring those memories up, because that's an integral part to what the word means. Pick any word and when you say it, you'll think about more than just it's dictionary definition, you'll think about all your experiences with that word. It's not possible to just not get offended when offensive speech is used.

But even if you used an incorrect insult, I'd still be offended, because I'm an emotionally developed human being. As a human being, I want to be liked, it's hard-wired into our brains. When you express dislike for me, thoughts are processed, chemicals are released, and I feel like shit. It's a basic part of human emotions, if you aren't upset when people express discontent towards you, something is severely wrong with you. Furthermore, I'm offended for all the people you used as an insult. Empathy is a pretty basic part of being a human, if you can't see why you shouldn't throw a few billion people under the bus, then your emotional development is severely stunted.
User avatar #147 - Vandeekree (05/06/2013) [-]
But when it comes to being offended it doesn't matter what others think. It doesn't matter if every single person on Earth thinks you are white trash. It only matters what you think, what you let effect you. Nothing on the outside can get to you unless you internalize it. You choose to care what those people think of you, there is nothing inherent about it. If you believe yourself to be valuable then no amount of other people telling you otherwise can change it. But if you see reason to think they are right then you begin to believe it, you begin to see there might be truth to what they say and that's what causes offence.

That is what makes you able to simply control if you are offended or not. Words have no power besides the power you give them. Being offended comes from insecurity in something. There is a reason insults are often aimed at short comings. If you want to get to someone you insult their social standing or their physical flaws, you have to aim for the things they themselves believe are negative things. You'll never offend someone by hatefully saying they are handsome or angrily telling them they have a high I.Q.

So yes, you choose to be offended by letting yourself accept short comings and allowing those words to devalue you in your own mind.
#149 - kingpongthedon (05/06/2013) [-]
I'm going to be offended regardless, I can choose not to get upset about it or not to hold a grudge, but being offended is a gut-reaction, it's not a rational processed thought, and it never will be completely. Regardless, no matter how hardened you are, it's still going to hurt. I mean, if I hit Mayweather in the face, it's still gonna hurt him, no matter how much he's adapted to it. It won't hurt nearly as bad as when he returns the favor, but part of being human is feeling pain, whether emotional of physical, and you can't just think pain away, you can take your mind off it, but it'll still be there.

Also, there are ways of insulting everything, e.g. Pretty-boy and nerd for handsome and intelligent, respectively.
User avatar #150 - Vandeekree (05/06/2013) [-]
But that's not what I'm talking about. I don't mean you harden yourself to handle the blow of an insult, I mean you can simply convince yourself that you are not in the wrong and thus no insult can cause such a gut reaction. It's sort of like instead of taking a punch and being able to endure the pain, you simply avoid the blow and never get hit at all.

What I mean is, being called "Pretty boy" has the implication that you are effeminate. But if that guy is a handsome navy seal who considers himself to be more above averagely masculine then that insult would make him smirk. And if the smart guy gets called a nerd in the most negative of insults but he is one of those guys who labels himself as a nerd and likes that about himself, then the insult becomes a complement.

So yes, you can take the pain away by simply not letting yourself be bothered by such things. All you have to do is purge yourself of those insecurities and be happy with yourself and you can never be offended.
#33 - When Christianity was introduced to other cultures it was comm… 05/04/2013 on Tiyanak 0
#8 - **************** .jpg 05/04/2013 on Why? 0
#2 - Great, now that you've found it can you tell me how to get, ho… 04/29/2013 on Finally found it 0
#723 - I'm a tad surprised you'd say i don't know much about moral ph… 04/22/2013 on Gay Marriage 0
#721 - (replying up here because we have run out of room and it won't…  [+] (2 new replies) 04/22/2013 on Gay Marriage 0
#722 - kanade has deleted their comment.
User avatar #723 - Vandeekree (04/22/2013) [-]
I'm a tad surprised you'd say i don't know much about moral philosophy and such as it's one of my areas of study. I'm clearly not on my game, it's been an all nighter debating with you in between doing homework so apparently i'm not making points very well.

but you must understand that while all of that is great. it still leaves any definition of what is best for society. Yes there can be most efficient, but that doesn't deal with the morality. There's simply nothing backing it up when you say something is wrong. There's nothing to make it wrong besides that you have decided that its effect is a bad one. Others could disagree with you and their opinions would carry just as much weight.

As for the articles i'm pretty sure i've read at least three of those already but it couldn't hurt to read them again.

Your study, however, is less than convincing. I've seen a considerably larger number of studies done directly on gay populations while this only indirectly studies the effects of marriage.
#717 - But you understand there is no logic behind morality without G…  [+] (1 new reply) 04/22/2013 on Gay Marriage 0
#718 - kanade has deleted their comment.
#715 - I see. But are you aware that there are some people who don't?…  [+] (3 new replies) 04/22/2013 on Gay Marriage 0
#716 - kanade has deleted their comment.
User avatar #717 - Vandeekree (04/22/2013) [-]
But you understand there is no logic behind morality without God to be the reason.

What is wrong with hurting someone else? Logically, if it were best for you, if you could get away with it, then you would do it. Logically you have no reason to care about anyone but yourself because you cannot feel pleasure given to them nor suffer their pain. Logically you should want the death penalty because it is the easiest and most efficient way to get rid of something that might be a threat to you.

You see, if you follow only cold logic, then you have no real reason to genuinely care about anyone else, although faking it might be a boon to you at times.
#718 - kanade has deleted their comment.
#713 - Those are all easy issues. But let me ask, is ****** …  [+] (5 new replies) 04/22/2013 on Gay Marriage 0
#714 - kanade has deleted their comment.
User avatar #715 - Vandeekree (04/22/2013) [-]
I see. But are you aware that there are some people who don't? Some people who think it's what's right?
#716 - kanade has deleted their comment.
User avatar #717 - Vandeekree (04/22/2013) [-]
But you understand there is no logic behind morality without God to be the reason.

What is wrong with hurting someone else? Logically, if it were best for you, if you could get away with it, then you would do it. Logically you have no reason to care about anyone but yourself because you cannot feel pleasure given to them nor suffer their pain. Logically you should want the death penalty because it is the easiest and most efficient way to get rid of something that might be a threat to you.

You see, if you follow only cold logic, then you have no real reason to genuinely care about anyone else, although faking it might be a boon to you at times.
#718 - kanade has deleted their comment.
#7 - yes but cheif is what? 8 feet tall? The space marine power arm…  [+] (3 new replies) 04/22/2013 on Background 0
User avatar #8 - Protagonistism (04/22/2013) [-]
hmm not that tall it's like 9-11 feet
#9 - blackscottsman (04/22/2013) [-]
User avatar #10 - Protagonistism (04/22/2013) [-]
Stop spreading cancer
#701 - Give me one reason for anything to be wrong without using what…  [+] (8 new replies) 04/22/2013 on Gay Marriage 0
#712 - kanade has deleted their comment.
#711 - kanade has deleted their comment.
User avatar #713 - Vandeekree (04/22/2013) [-]
Those are all easy issues. But let me ask, is murder always wrong? What about the death penalty. Someone's life is being taken away against their will but it's being done because someone else decided they deserved it.
#714 - kanade has deleted their comment.
User avatar #715 - Vandeekree (04/22/2013) [-]
I see. But are you aware that there are some people who don't? Some people who think it's what's right?
#716 - kanade has deleted their comment.
User avatar #717 - Vandeekree (04/22/2013) [-]
But you understand there is no logic behind morality without God to be the reason.

What is wrong with hurting someone else? Logically, if it were best for you, if you could get away with it, then you would do it. Logically you have no reason to care about anyone but yourself because you cannot feel pleasure given to them nor suffer their pain. Logically you should want the death penalty because it is the easiest and most efficient way to get rid of something that might be a threat to you.

You see, if you follow only cold logic, then you have no real reason to genuinely care about anyone else, although faking it might be a boon to you at times.
#718 - kanade has deleted their comment.
Show:
Sort by:
Order:

items

Total unique items point value: 550 / Total items point value: 1000

Show All Replies Show Shortcuts
Per page:
Order:
Anonymous commenting is allowed
User avatar #19 - kiratheunholy ONLINE (05/09/2013) [-]
Do you not have morals? Like seriously do you not have any? You claim that you only do as the bible instructs every time someone asks you about morals, but do you not know right from wrong without religion?

If so perhaps you should learn it. I'm an agnostic and I still know what's right from wrong without a higher entity instructing me on it. If the only thing keeping you from being a moral-less prick is religion then you are probably a psychopath.
User avatar #16 - justinsane (04/04/2013) [-]
Lets just put this here, shall we? Fewer purple lines
User avatar #18 to #16 - justinsane (04/04/2013) [-]
Now I strongly disagree that more studies need to be done in order to come to a consensus. All of the leading bodies which have done research on the subject have found no reason to indicate that gays are naturally more likely through their expression of sexuality to have any types of adverse effects. The only people I have heard calling for more research are the same people claiming that climate change is not a thing or that natural selection doesnt happen. There is a consensus in the scientific community and it is people who are not a part of the community who claim that they cant make conclusions (because they dont like the ones made)
User avatar #17 to #16 - Vandeekree ONLINE (04/04/2013) [-]
Tis a good idea
#14 - highclassbean (02/11/2013) [-]
thank you for being so informative and calm in that religious conversation with thebritish.guy. really gave a positive look on the religious community.
User avatar #15 to #14 - Vandeekree ONLINE (02/11/2013) [-]
Why thank you. Simply following the bible though. It says to approach the nonbeliever with respect and politeness.
#10 - anonymous (09/07/2012) [-]
******* idiot.
#9 - Vandeekree ONLINE (09/01/2012) [-]
**Vandeekree rolled a random image posted in comment #40 at Christian dating **
#5 - Vandeekree ONLINE (09/14/2011) [-]
**Vandeekree rolled a random image**
User avatar #4 - Vandeekree ONLINE (07/27/2011) [-]
**Vandeekree rolls 1**
User avatar #3 - Vandeekree ONLINE (08/08/2010) [-]
**Vandeekree rolls 4**
#1 - bearycool **User deleted account** (07/14/2010) [-]
*pats head* don't worry my son I read your comment 80
User avatar #2 to #1 - Vandeekree ONLINE (07/14/2010) [-]
Thank you, now I feel loved. i guess that's what I get for posting in the morning when the average funnyjunker is asleep.
 Friends (0)