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

hide menu

ZeDoodler    

Rank #6275 on Subscribers
ZeDoodler Avatar Level 210 Comments: Comedic Genius
Offline
Send mail to ZeDoodler Block ZeDoodler Invite ZeDoodler to be your friend flag avatar
Last status update:
-
Personal Info
Gender: male
Date Signed Up:10/27/2010
Last Login:7/31/2014
Location:ZeInternet
Funnyjunk Career Stats
Content Ranking:#10894
Comment Ranking:#26007
Highest Content Rank:#1836
Highest Comment Rank:#3138
Content Thumbs: 2299 total,  2732 ,  433
Comment Thumbs: 1165 total,  1728 ,  563
Content Level Progress: 90% (90/100)
Level 121 Content: Respected Member Of Famiry → Level 122 Content: Respected Member Of Famiry
Comment Level Progress: 12% (6/50)
Level 210 Comments: Comedic Genius → Level 211 Comments: Comedic Genius
Subscribers:12
Content Views:42313
Times Content Favorited:120 times
Total Comments Made:608
FJ Points:3319
Favorite Tags: The Game (3)
Merp.

Show:
Sort by:
Order:

funny text/links

Show:
Sort by:
Order:

funny pictures

1 2 > [ 9 Funny Pictures Total ]
Show:
Sort by:
Order:

funny gifs

  • Views: 4147
    Thumbs Up 46 Thumbs Down 3 Total: +43
    Comments: 2
    Favorites: 1
    Uploaded: 02/26/14
    Neat. Neat.
Show:
Sort by:
Order:

user favorites

latest user's comments

#14566 - So I meditated directly after taking preworkout to kill time w…  [+] (1 new reply) 06/17/2014 on Fitness - muscle and... +1
User avatar #14589 - lordketchup (06/19/2014) [-]
What preworkout did you use?
#67569 - In case anyone is wondering why I haven't been responding I'd … 05/10/2014 on Religion Board 0
#67507 - Ahhh now I see what you're saying. Thanks for the input! inter…  [+] (1 new reply) 05/10/2014 on Religion Board +1
#67510 - vanityfair (05/10/2014) [-]
No problem.
#67505 - Care to explain this more? I think I have a rough understandin…  [+] (3 new replies) 05/10/2014 on Religion Board +1
#67506 - vanityfair (05/10/2014) [-]
That's not what I mean. What I mean is, it is often said that because of pi being infinite and non-repeating, that it must contain every combination of numbers imaginable. This is not technically true, as there are irrational, infinite, non-repeating numbers which do not contain every single number combination, like 1.010010001000010000010000001..

This is a similar situation to what you said above. Saying that the universe is infinite (which we don't necessarily know) therefore life must exist because of there being an infinite number of combinations of scenarios. Basically, an infinite number of situations does not necessarily mean every situation occurs, it's a common error.

Physics agrees with you though, as in physics we can say things are statistically certain, such as the laws of thermodynamics. We're pretty sure of the statistical certainty of life existing on other planets, it's just you said "basic arithmetic will tell you it's impossible for life to not exist somewhere else in the universe because of the universe's infinite nature", which isn't correct.
User avatar #67507 - ZeDoodler (05/10/2014) [-]
Ahhh now I see what you're saying. Thanks for the input! interesting stuff.
#67510 - vanityfair (05/10/2014) [-]
No problem.
#67504 - Perhaps philosophy vs. reality? Philosophy tends to lay out th…  [+] (1 new reply) 05/10/2014 on Religion Board +1
User avatar #67514 - nigeltheoutlaw (05/10/2014) [-]
Yes, I think that's a bit better of a comparison.

And I don't hold it against you. I'm not saying there is no chance of a god or afterlife, just that I don't believe in them without scientific proof of their existence. In the future I very well may eat my words, and at that time I will admit that I was wrong.

It is, which is why I don't believe all that strongly for the existence of aliens. It's a nice thought to me, nothing more.
#3 - Interesting. What would happen if a deity showed himself, and …  [+] (1 new reply) 05/10/2014 on Religious Discussion, no... 0
#4 - ishfwilf (05/10/2014) [-]
I'm sorry, but you'll have to rephrase your question. Because it's unclear what you meant.
It's like you tried to say several things at the same time, and some words seem to have disappeared in the process.
#67493 - I like your defense because it shows how at our core people ca…  [+] (9 new replies) 05/10/2014 on Religion Board +1
User avatar #67544 - kanadetenshi (05/10/2014) [-]
You mean hypothesis, not theory.
#67500 - vanityfair (05/10/2014) [-]
If I can interject, what you say about basic arithmetic proving there's life on other planets is not necessarily true, and is a misinterpretation of what infinity is and means. It's a similar situation as when people say that every single combination of numbers exists in pi, as it is an infinite, non-repeating irrational number, therefore it contains every single combination of numbers. This is not necessarily true, an infinite, non-repeating irrational decimal could be 1.010010001000010000010000001...ect. This same principle can be applied to the universe.
Although from a physics statistical certainty point of view you're correct, similar to the laws or thermodynamics, basic arithmetic does not prove it.
User avatar #67505 - ZeDoodler (05/10/2014) [-]
Care to explain this more? I think I have a rough understanding of what you are trying to say but I'm not seeing the whole picture.

Are you saying that a series of digits like 01,001,0001 etc. could not exist in pi because of the arithmetic involved in discovering a number such as pi? If this is the case how can this be applied to the universe?

On a side note I was not expecting to get a lesson in mathematics with this post, but hey! This is what makes the internet so much fun.
#67506 - vanityfair (05/10/2014) [-]
That's not what I mean. What I mean is, it is often said that because of pi being infinite and non-repeating, that it must contain every combination of numbers imaginable. This is not technically true, as there are irrational, infinite, non-repeating numbers which do not contain every single number combination, like 1.010010001000010000010000001..

This is a similar situation to what you said above. Saying that the universe is infinite (which we don't necessarily know) therefore life must exist because of there being an infinite number of combinations of scenarios. Basically, an infinite number of situations does not necessarily mean every situation occurs, it's a common error.

Physics agrees with you though, as in physics we can say things are statistically certain, such as the laws of thermodynamics. We're pretty sure of the statistical certainty of life existing on other planets, it's just you said "basic arithmetic will tell you it's impossible for life to not exist somewhere else in the universe because of the universe's infinite nature", which isn't correct.
User avatar #67507 - ZeDoodler (05/10/2014) [-]
Ahhh now I see what you're saying. Thanks for the input! interesting stuff.
#67510 - vanityfair (05/10/2014) [-]
No problem.
User avatar #67497 - nigeltheoutlaw (05/10/2014) [-]
I agree. I don't mind if other people believe things, even if I think they're wrong, as long as they don't make them an ass, make them bigots, or make them do bad things.

No, I think that's a decent way to approach it. I'd prefer Optimistic vs. Realistic, but then that makes you sound like you live in a fantasy, which isn't true either.

That's true, and it could be called hypocrisy that I believe that aliens exist somewhere while not believing in a deity, but how I explain it is: aliens would exist in our universe and follow its laws. A deity, by most definitions would have to be able to break our laws of the unicerse, which is impossible. It's why I believe aliens are a likely scenario due to the vastness of the universe, while deities aren't since they would require something impossible to become possible. This is why I still feel that aliens are a possibility without evidence, while deities are not a possibility without evidence.
User avatar #67504 - ZeDoodler (05/10/2014) [-]
Perhaps philosophy vs. reality? Philosophy tends to lay out the ground work for hard science.

And while I see what you are saying, I still feel there is a possibility for a deity/afterlife. While we might not have the formula for explaining such a complex being/idea at the present moment, I feel there is still a strong possibility for doing so in the future the same way we can assume aliens exist with similar mathematics.

But once again, we are arguing a matter of belief instead of evidence and how we interpret it.
User avatar #67514 - nigeltheoutlaw (05/10/2014) [-]
Yes, I think that's a bit better of a comparison.

And I don't hold it against you. I'm not saying there is no chance of a god or afterlife, just that I don't believe in them without scientific proof of their existence. In the future I very well may eat my words, and at that time I will admit that I was wrong.

It is, which is why I don't believe all that strongly for the existence of aliens. It's a nice thought to me, nothing more.
#67486 - Agnosticfag here, and it's DISCUSSION TIMEEE Any athe…  [+] (51 new replies) 05/10/2014 on Religion Board 0
User avatar #67593 - noblexfenrir (05/10/2014) [-]
Late to the party, will try to respond without saying something that's already been brought up.

"I believe in an afterlife for the sole reason that I think it would be ignorant to assume the opposite."
How is it not ignorant to assume the existence of something without credibly evidence? and with that, how is it ignorant to admit lack of knowledge in somethings existence?

"Because of the infinite nature of this universe and the possibility of a multiverse leads me to believe that the idea of an afterlife can be explained with science in the future. "
The "infinite" nature of the universe is commonly misunderstood, Kanadetenshi had a great example that shows that when we are discussing something that is "infinite" in information (Infinite in this case, standing for unknown, not unlimited.), we have to take into account our current knowledge when making hypotheses. So when discussing the brain and such things, it is an absurd claim to suggest something that either has had no evidence up to this point supporting said claim, or the claim is outright contradicted by previous evidence.

When you make a claim, you need current evidence to support it. Saying "I feel someday science will explain it" is not evidence and makes your claim useless and false due to lack of evidence.

"Consciousness is a powerful form of energy that extends beyond the traditional realm of energy"
...No it isn't? It's a product of processes involving energy. Not an energetic process in of itself.


"to take form in ways that can't be described by modern science."
Science does explain, describe, and even break down the concept of consciousness. There also isn't such a thing as "modern" science in the way you are using the term, you are implying that there is some invisible restriction on current methods that make us unable to grasp or examine the true nature of certain things. Yet you stand to have knowledge on these claims.
User avatar #67594 - noblexfenrir (05/10/2014) [-]
So can we examine your claims for consciousness or can't we? If we can then it should be able to stand up to examination and scientific processes, if we can't yet due to lacking technological standards and such, then your claims are useless because you have no evidence to support them with other than your own personal conjecture.

"a guess-and-check game rather than a hard science like chemistry."
Because psychology isn't meant to be like chemistry. Psychology is an observational science, it can't be used the way you a trying to, because what you're trying to prove has nothing to do with psychology.

"I feel that one day consciousness will be explained with formulas and numbers the same way a chem-lab experiment could be"
It already is to a certain extent. We know where it derives from, the extent we apply consciousness over other animals and man-made consciousness such as computers/AI/etc., many ways in which we can affect an individuals consciousness, how an individuals level of consciousness effects them as well, etc. Yes there's alot we don't know, but you make it seem like we've learned nothing.

"and until that day has come I find it hard to believe my sentience means nothing more to this universe/multiverse than a series of complex chemical reactions that formed my physical body. "

So something can't be true because you don't like it? Bad science mate.

"I have no idea how to explain how my consciousness will live on after my physical body's death"
Then don't make the claim if you have no way to support it. If your only reason for believing something is because you really want to, then not only are you wrong for trying to claim it as truth, you run the risk of tainting all future evidence and procedures by simply trying to confirm your bias.

"but I feel the sheer complexity of it leaves room for possibility and wonder. "
Ofcourse it does, but that doesn't mean we make things up.
User avatar #67569 - ZeDoodler (05/10/2014) [-]
In case anyone is wondering why I haven't been responding I'd like to apologize, you guys have been bringing up excellent points that I'd like to address but I've been running around all day and have mentally drained myself, I'll respond to all of you in due time I just need to take care of some shiet and recharge my brain. This post was made over a cup of coffee in the morning and I wasn't expecting such a large response. Take care
User avatar #67566 - thebritishguy (05/10/2014) [-]
So you're like an agnostic deist?

To believe that there is an afterlife would be an assumption, saying "I don't know if there's an afterlife" would be the most honest approach as then you don't make any assumptions. If you think it will be explained in the future then wait.

I think that now we have nueroscience it is a lot more empirical, we already know that consciousness can be affected by chemical and other physical effects so to say that it's beyond the physical world seems un neccessary, if consciousness is so beyond the realm of traditional physics, why can it be stopped by blunt force or affected by diet?

Because you find something hard to believe does not make it false, that's fallacious, argument from personal incredulity.

It is fine to wonder, but to believe in wonderments is delusion.
User avatar #67580 - lulzfornigeriagirl (05/10/2014) [-]
I always wonder around the lines of agnostic deism and I'm pretty sure it excludes the whole afterlife part so I'd say he is just an agnostic theist in general.
User avatar #67587 - thebritishguy (05/10/2014) [-]
I think there's a pretty thin line, if the God provides an afterlife it would show that the god is personal I guess.
User avatar #67581 - teoberry (05/10/2014) [-]
You should 'wonder' around an English class one of these days.
User avatar #67582 - lulzfornigeriagirl (05/10/2014) [-]
Petty insults...
User avatar #67583 - teoberry (05/10/2014) [-]
I'm joking lulz. Calm down.
User avatar #67584 - lulzfornigeriagirl (05/10/2014) [-]
That's a good way to dismiss anything with. I was joking when I had the thumb raid, when I spam, ect.
User avatar #67585 - teoberry (05/10/2014) [-]
There's a difference between spamming and a petty insult, lulz.
User avatar #67586 - lulzfornigeriagirl (05/10/2014) [-]
Sure, one brings more butthurt and lasts longer and more amusing in all. The other is just meh because its "petty"
User avatar #67592 - teoberry (05/10/2014) [-]
Lulz, no one is even butthurt or amused when you spam, we just kind of think "did something happen at school today? who bullied him?"
User avatar #67604 - lulzfornigeriagirl (05/11/2014) [-]
k
User avatar #67744 - teoberry (05/12/2014) [-]
he mad
#67570 - dehumanizer (05/10/2014) [-]
"...Because you find something hard to believe does not make it false..."
User avatar #67761 - acemcgunner (05/12/2014) [-]
ghost..aliens..etc. etc. fits that!!!
User avatar #67588 - thebritishguy (05/10/2014) [-]
love the gif, I do not claim that God is false so this doesn't relate to me, the only claim I make is that I do not believe in God for I have not seen evidence, he may exist but there is no basis to believe him at this point, I am an agnostic atheist.
User avatar #67762 - acemcgunner (05/12/2014) [-]
bullshit, you said god isn't real!! calling you out!!
User avatar #67786 - thebritishguy (05/12/2014) [-]
When did I say that?
User avatar #67798 - acemcgunner (05/12/2014) [-]
nigga nutter i'll find it!! brb.. god hates sin! >
lying is one of them..
User avatar #67573 - revengeforfreeze (05/10/2014) [-]
hahahah
User avatar #67556 - princessren (05/10/2014) [-]
I feel like defend is a bad word choice
I mean...I suppose it is appropriate considering this board
but why should we feel the need to defend why can we not just discuss
User avatar #67555 - revengeforfreeze (05/10/2014) [-]
I want to join in but I'm too lazy/inept. Sucks
User avatar #67543 - kanadetenshi (05/10/2014) [-]
I'm an methodological naturalist

When it comes to neurology and quantum mechanics we can pretty much show that the naturalistic view is the more logical principle to accept.

Let's take the afterlife for example, you can't disprove the afterlife but when you look at basic neurology the idea makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Neurology has shown us that literally everything our mind does is based on the brain, the mind is our brain, this is easily proven by showing that damaging or altering very specific parts of the brain can completely alter your behaviour.

Take for example face recognition, some parts of the brain are used to recognize shapes, another one is used to bind these shapes together into a face, another one is used to give meaning to said face and recognize that the face is from someone significant. We can literally alter your mind to shut off the brain to make it unable for you to recognize the significance of a face, we can also alter your mind to make it unable to recognize it as a face as a whole. And literally everything else from emotions and cognitive skills can be altered.

So tell me this, how the hell is it possible to make someone completely forget about their grandma by simply altering 1% of the brain, but when 100% of the brain is shut off they still magically have all their memories inside some unexplainable immaterial entity? When we look at principles such as conciousness, we see that it's all done in the brain, and adding a soul or afterlife into the equation while not impossible it's simply unscientific and a violation of occam's razor.
User avatar #67548 - lulzfornigeriagirl (05/10/2014) [-]
ZeDoodler, mind responding to this^
#67545 - dehumanizer (05/10/2014) [-]
through recreation of all the natural electric logaritms constantly working in the brain
User avatar #67546 - kanadetenshi (05/10/2014) [-]
Natural electric logaritms are only possible with functioning intergrated living units. Encoding and storing can only be done in material objects. It would be like recreating a video game without the hardware, engine, physics or C++ coding.
#67561 - dehumanizer (05/10/2014) [-]
except all of the hardware's blueprints are already written down, craeted from 0 in a matter of months
#67524 - lulzfornigeriagirl (05/10/2014) [-]
Are you implying at the idea that our consciousness is not related to our physical brain, because if so then I hate to break it to you but you're wrong.

"Consciousness is a powerful form of energy that extends beyond the traditional realm of energy."
We can change people's conscious minds, personalities and such by tinkering with there brain. Different parts of the brain are associated with different things like emotion, language, ect. To say it can't be described by modern science is ludicrous. Just because they haven't entirely finished doing this doesn't mean they haven't started. If you push away the reality of science and its way of explaining everything to us then you push away from reason.
User avatar #67501 - personalspace (05/10/2014) [-]
Maybe when I get home from work.
User avatar #67488 - nigeltheoutlaw (05/10/2014) [-]
Sure, I'll defend my beliefs. It's fairly simple: in life, if there is no evidence for the existence of something, the reasonable assumption is nonbelief until when and if evidence is provided. I think it's the simplest way to approach life.

Your ideas are interesting, but they all come back to the "no evidence = no belief" basis of my life, except for consciousness, since it's just a culmination of the various electrical and chemical interactions in your brain. That is of course my opinion, but the fact that you can trick your consciousness with optical illusions and things like the Pinnochio Effect, and affect it directly with chemicals that alter brain chemistry makes me think that it's far more likely to be based in something material than a mystical force that we can't understand.

Thanks for posting, I enjoyed reading your take on life.
#67511 - danield (05/10/2014) [-]
User avatar #67620 - lulzfornigeriagirl (05/11/2014) [-]
You actually liked this teoberry? Anyone who isn't a Christian is just automatically a piece of crap to you or something?
User avatar #67746 - teoberry (05/12/2014) [-]
plus it got a reaction out of you
User avatar #67745 - teoberry (05/12/2014) [-]
it's a funny picture you faggot
User avatar #67657 - majormayor (05/11/2014) [-]
It's all good fun.
User avatar #67668 - revengeforfreeze (05/11/2014) [-]
It's annoying is what it is
#67627 - danield (05/11/2014) [-]
User avatar #67658 - majormayor (05/11/2014) [-]
You're cool man.
User avatar #67513 - nigeltheoutlaw (05/10/2014) [-]
What was that for? We're having a calm and polite discussion of our views, and you still feel the need to come in and be an asshole to me?
User avatar #67493 - ZeDoodler (05/10/2014) [-]
I like your defense because it shows how at our core people can have fundamental differences in belief but still be able to peacefully coexist.

Forgive me if I sound hateful, but I think our differences in belief are very Optimistic vs. Pessimistic in nature. I don't think your views are pessimistic but I can't find a better way to describe it.

I feel just because there is no evidence of something does not mean it doesn't exist. For example, we have no evidence that life exists somewhere else in the universe (unless you want to call area 51 evidence) but basic arithmetic will tell you it's impossible for life to not exist somewhere else in the universe because of the universe's infinite nature. While one may argue mathematics provides a certain degree of evidence, life on other planets will remain a theory until physical evidence proves otherwise. A similar argument can be applied to religion.
User avatar #67544 - kanadetenshi (05/10/2014) [-]
You mean hypothesis, not theory.
#67500 - vanityfair (05/10/2014) [-]
If I can interject, what you say about basic arithmetic proving there's life on other planets is not necessarily true, and is a misinterpretation of what infinity is and means. It's a similar situation as when people say that every single combination of numbers exists in pi, as it is an infinite, non-repeating irrational number, therefore it contains every single combination of numbers. This is not necessarily true, an infinite, non-repeating irrational decimal could be 1.010010001000010000010000001...ect. This same principle can be applied to the universe.
Although from a physics statistical certainty point of view you're correct, similar to the laws or thermodynamics, basic arithmetic does not prove it.
User avatar #67505 - ZeDoodler (05/10/2014) [-]
Care to explain this more? I think I have a rough understanding of what you are trying to say but I'm not seeing the whole picture.

Are you saying that a series of digits like 01,001,0001 etc. could not exist in pi because of the arithmetic involved in discovering a number such as pi? If this is the case how can this be applied to the universe?

On a side note I was not expecting to get a lesson in mathematics with this post, but hey! This is what makes the internet so much fun.
#67506 - vanityfair (05/10/2014) [-]
That's not what I mean. What I mean is, it is often said that because of pi being infinite and non-repeating, that it must contain every combination of numbers imaginable. This is not technically true, as there are irrational, infinite, non-repeating numbers which do not contain every single number combination, like 1.010010001000010000010000001..

This is a similar situation to what you said above. Saying that the universe is infinite (which we don't necessarily know) therefore life must exist because of there being an infinite number of combinations of scenarios. Basically, an infinite number of situations does not necessarily mean every situation occurs, it's a common error.

Physics agrees with you though, as in physics we can say things are statistically certain, such as the laws of thermodynamics. We're pretty sure of the statistical certainty of life existing on other planets, it's just you said "basic arithmetic will tell you it's impossible for life to not exist somewhere else in the universe because of the universe's infinite nature", which isn't correct.
User avatar #67507 - ZeDoodler (05/10/2014) [-]
Ahhh now I see what you're saying. Thanks for the input! interesting stuff.
#67510 - vanityfair (05/10/2014) [-]
No problem.
User avatar #67497 - nigeltheoutlaw (05/10/2014) [-]
I agree. I don't mind if other people believe things, even if I think they're wrong, as long as they don't make them an ass, make them bigots, or make them do bad things.

No, I think that's a decent way to approach it. I'd prefer Optimistic vs. Realistic, but then that makes you sound like you live in a fantasy, which isn't true either.

That's true, and it could be called hypocrisy that I believe that aliens exist somewhere while not believing in a deity, but how I explain it is: aliens would exist in our universe and follow its laws. A deity, by most definitions would have to be able to break our laws of the unicerse, which is impossible. It's why I believe aliens are a likely scenario due to the vastness of the universe, while deities aren't since they would require something impossible to become possible. This is why I still feel that aliens are a possibility without evidence, while deities are not a possibility without evidence.
User avatar #67504 - ZeDoodler (05/10/2014) [-]
Perhaps philosophy vs. reality? Philosophy tends to lay out the ground work for hard science.

And while I see what you are saying, I still feel there is a possibility for a deity/afterlife. While we might not have the formula for explaining such a complex being/idea at the present moment, I feel there is still a strong possibility for doing so in the future the same way we can assume aliens exist with similar mathematics.

But once again, we are arguing a matter of belief instead of evidence and how we interpret it.
User avatar #67514 - nigeltheoutlaw (05/10/2014) [-]
Yes, I think that's a bit better of a comparison.

And I don't hold it against you. I'm not saying there is no chance of a god or afterlife, just that I don't believe in them without scientific proof of their existence. In the future I very well may eat my words, and at that time I will admit that I was wrong.

It is, which is why I don't believe all that strongly for the existence of aliens. It's a nice thought to me, nothing more.
#128 - Comment deleted 05/01/2014 on Musician 0
#13730 - It's a series of workout videos that can be done in the comfor… 05/01/2014 on Fitness - muscle and... 0
Show:
Sort by:
Order:

items

Total unique items point value: 550 / Total items point value: 750

Show All Replies Show Shortcuts
Per page:
Order:
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
User avatar #3 - ImCheating (01/07/2011) [-]
It delete.
User avatar #4 to #3 - ZeDoodler (01/07/2011) [-]
Kai kewl
User avatar #1 - Danzilla (12/02/2010) [-]
Comment virginity taken, you are welcome. :)
 Friends (0)