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

hide menu

alltimetens    

Rank #2948 on Subscribers
alltimetens Avatar Level 312 Content: Wizard
Offline
Send mail to alltimetens Block alltimetens Invite alltimetens to be your friend flag avatar
Last status update:
-
Personal Info
Interests: Interesting things
Date Signed Up:2/07/2012
Last Login:11/22/2014
Funnyjunk Career Stats
Comment Ranking:#33231
Highest Content Rank:#14
Highest Comment Rank:#1365
Content Thumbs: 120654 total,  132053 ,  11399
Comment Thumbs: 4945 total,  8672 ,  3727
Content Level Progress: 3.1% (310/10000)
Level 312 Content: Wizard → Level 313 Content: Wizard
Comment Level Progress: 91% (91/100)
Level 245 Comments: Doinitrite → Level 246 Comments: Doinitrite
Subscribers:27
Content Views:4760591
Times Content Favorited:7237 times
Total Comments Made:4344
FJ Points:110109
Favorite Tags: The Game (2)
Just an average Funny Junk user who shares images. I am not accepting any trade requests. You can have my items, however, I am not giving/trading my FJ points. Feel free to subscribe.

latest user's comments

#160 - I'm not really a Christian. I'm more of an agnostic.  [+] (1 new reply) 05/31/2014 on alltimetens's profile 0
User avatar #161 - syrianassassin (05/31/2014) [-]
and when you wanted answer, all you found is some new atheism bitches and cock sucking tranny faggots trolling you with nonsense
right?
#70318 - I really don't feel like reading all of that so please give me…  [+] (1 new reply) 05/31/2014 on Religion Board 0
User avatar #70319 - ribocoon (05/31/2014) [-]
You can just read the first portion
I don't agree with the soft determinism mentioned later.
#70316 - Why don't you believe in free will?  [+] (3 new replies) 05/31/2014 on Religion Board 0
User avatar #70317 - ribocoon (05/31/2014) [-]
Read this please
I feel as if it quickly sums up the argument
webspace.ship.edu/cgboer/freewill.html
User avatar #70318 - alltimetens (05/31/2014) [-]
I really don't feel like reading all of that so please give me the basic principles.
User avatar #70319 - ribocoon (05/31/2014) [-]
You can just read the first portion
I don't agree with the soft determinism mentioned later.
#70314 - You can't use the "why doesn't God help us" argument…  [+] (5 new replies) 05/31/2014 on Religion Board +1
User avatar #70315 - ribocoon (05/31/2014) [-]
why not?
I don't object to the possibility of an ambivalent god.
I just make the subjective observation that the world is far too corrupted for a perfect being to be directly responsible for it's state of being
It may help to know that I don't believe in free will
User avatar #70316 - alltimetens (05/31/2014) [-]
Why don't you believe in free will?
User avatar #70317 - ribocoon (05/31/2014) [-]
Read this please
I feel as if it quickly sums up the argument
webspace.ship.edu/cgboer/freewill.html
User avatar #70318 - alltimetens (05/31/2014) [-]
I really don't feel like reading all of that so please give me the basic principles.
User avatar #70319 - ribocoon (05/31/2014) [-]
You can just read the first portion
I don't agree with the soft determinism mentioned later.
#44 - I started masturbating in 2nd grade when I was 8. I felt a ver…  [+] (1 new reply) 05/31/2014 on Who hasn't? +1
User avatar #67 - chrispoot (05/31/2014) [-]
ITT: Masturbation story

>Be me
>Be 14 years old
>Never masturbated
>Have watched porn several times during the years
>Never let the tenison flow out
>Eventually decide to experiment with this 'Masturbating' Thingy
>Go to shower
>Nervous beacuse new experience
>Start fappin slowly
>Take 5 sec
>BOOOM
>Best feeling I ever had
>Continues to masturbate to this day
Allthough, my sessions now are not as good as the first time I had ana orgasm. Jeez, 14 old fapless. God, that was the best fucking orgasm ever holy shit
#70311 - The reasoning behind a god in the first place! The u…  [+] (33 new replies) 05/31/2014 on Religion Board 0
User avatar #70336 - kanadetenshi (05/31/2014) [-]
I already refuted that oversimplistic argument. Your argument implies a linear timeline of cause and effect, time doesn't work that way.
User avatar #70374 - alltimetens (05/31/2014) [-]
I already proved that your counterargument has just enough evidence as my initial argument.

You have refuted nothing.
User avatar #70405 - kanadetenshi (05/31/2014) [-]
I don't want to prove it wrong at all, i never said that. I asked for evidence, that's not trying to prove anything wrong.
User avatar #70408 - alltimetens (05/31/2014) [-]
So what exactly are you doing by throwing out all of these counterclaims that are aimed at disproving my argument?
User avatar #70410 - kanadetenshi (05/31/2014) [-]
You asked for an alternative explanation with evidence so i gave you one. What you're doing is side-stepping the fact that you failed to provide logically proof that god exists.
User avatar #70412 - alltimetens (05/31/2014) [-]
Your alternatives do not have any definite solutions.
User avatar #70413 - kanadetenshi (05/31/2014) [-]
The alternatives provide evidence that god isn't needed for a universe to come into existence.
User avatar #70431 - alltimetens (05/31/2014) [-]
Actually, the alternatives only indicate that the universe can be indirectly created by the creator.

Meaning, the apparatus such as virtual particles themselves are not definite.
User avatar #70404 - kanadetenshi (05/31/2014) [-]
You completely missed the point, what i'm talking about is that you're adding a whole bunch of useless "what ifs" at a substantiated fact in science that doesn't need anything added. Just like basic biology doesn't need fairies added.

What you're doing is the god of the gaps argument, basically even if i showed you an origin before this you're going to ask for another origin and then i give another one and you ask for another one and we're going on forever, that's not how science works that's special pleading.

Principles such as "before and "after" in a phenomena that violated time makes no sense, there's no logical reason to apply a possible origin before empty space because empty space violates time, it's like asking that there must be something that is south of the south-pole, it's stupid.
User avatar #70407 - alltimetens (05/31/2014) [-]
These "what ifs" aren't useless at all. That means that no matter what evidence you give me, you cannot prove the me that the Law of Causality is violated.

If we go on an endless chain of "what ifs" then that means that energy/matter is recycled throughout.
User avatar #70409 - kanadetenshi (05/31/2014) [-]
That doesn't mean that causality isn't violated you dumbfuck, that just means that you're special pleading. Like i said there is no such thing as before and after in empty space.
User avatar #70375 - kanadetenshi (05/31/2014) [-]
No it didn't you merely said that we don't know if it comes from ex nihilo which is an irrelevant statement because i was merely talking about cause and effect which quantum mechanics violates.
User avatar #70377 - alltimetens (05/31/2014) [-]
Oh, so when I make unsubstantiated arguments it's a sin but when you do the same your argument is plausible? That's not how it works, my friend.
User avatar #70379 - kanadetenshi (05/31/2014) [-]
Except quantum mechanics isn't unsubstantiated.
User avatar #70382 - alltimetens (05/31/2014) [-]
I'm not saying quantum mechanics isn't substantiated; I'm saying that the small portion of quantum mechanics that you used as the basis of your argument is contradictory.

Why is it contradictory?

Because you criticize my arguments for believing in something with no evidence, yet your ideologies are based off of just as much evidence.
User avatar #70384 - kanadetenshi (05/31/2014) [-]
Except i have provided evidence of the fact that virtual particles pop in and out of existence from zero energy fields. Just because you're to stupid to understand this doesn't mean it doesn't have evidence. What you're trying to do is shift the burden of proof because you know you have no arguments for your irrational god position.
User avatar #70385 - alltimetens (05/31/2014) [-]
I already refuted your zero energy fields argument.

And of course I'm going to have to demand evidence from my adversary who has criticized my lack thereof.
User avatar #70389 - kanadetenshi (05/31/2014) [-]
And i'm merely showing you facts, i don't have to provide any alternative explanations because i'm not the one making the claim that god doesn't exist, you are the one claiming god does exist and you have failed to give one logical argument or evidence for it's existence.
User avatar #70390 - alltimetens (05/31/2014) [-]
If you're going to counter my claim, then you have to provide evidence. It doesn't matter who is making the claim, it matters who has provided the best evidence.


User avatar #70393 - kanadetenshi (05/31/2014) [-]
I don't even have to counter your claim because you haven't given any evidence of your claim in the first place.
User avatar #70395 - alltimetens (05/31/2014) [-]
Yet I still manage to counter every single "substantiated" counter you threw at me.

You still contradicted yourself because you criticize me for not having evidence but you don't have any evidence of your own. We are essentially leading an argument that has absolutely no purpose because we don't have enough knowledge on either side.
User avatar #70397 - kanadetenshi (05/31/2014) [-]
No you didn't, you're simply showing how ignorant you are regarding the field of physics.
User avatar #70399 - alltimetens (05/31/2014) [-]
Actually, I have, which proves that you have no argumentative skill/background.

If I'm going to make an unsubstantiated claim, then you better give me a substantiated counter that proves me wrong.

For example, I can say that Lamarck's Theory of Evolution is correct, but in order to counter that, you have to say that Darwin's Theory is correct and then provide me with evidence as a way to prove me wrong.
User avatar #70402 - kanadetenshi (05/31/2014) [-]
Uhm no that's not how it works at all.

I can say that Lamarck's theory of evolution is correct, but someone else will ask for evidence that it's correct. They don't have to provide an alternative explanation because they aren't making any claims, they're asking for evidence.
User avatar #70403 - alltimetens (05/31/2014) [-]
But isn't applicable to this argument.

I'm giving a proposition.

You want to prove it wrong.

In order to prove it wrong, you have to provide evidence that it is wrong, otherwise I am not convinced.
User avatar #70388 - kanadetenshi (05/31/2014) [-]
No you didn't, you only showed your poor understanding of physics. You claim that zero energy universes don't explain whether or not they come from nothing while a zero energy universe IS NOTHING BY DEFINITION and particles come from this state hence violating causality. It's very likely that empty space is a default position that didn't came from anything because it's NOTHING.

I already showed you evidence that time and causality can be violated even without quantum mechanics, or are you going to deny the very principles of relativity aswell?
User avatar #70391 - alltimetens (05/31/2014) [-]
Nothing coming from nothing doesn't violate causality.
User avatar #70392 - kanadetenshi (05/31/2014) [-]
But something coming from a zero energy field does, and black holes do, and particle-wave duality does, and even time delay does.
User avatar #70394 - alltimetens (05/31/2014) [-]
You still have not provided sufficient evidence that they have originated there to begin with.

Virtual particles could have originated from zero energy universes, but what proof do you bring that states that they didn't come from another source?
User avatar #70396 - kanadetenshi (05/31/2014) [-]
Seriously the evidence is everywhere, physcists have done literally experiments that confirm that they come from empty space, read a book, read a journal, read anything based on physics and you'll find evidence, it's not rocket science to look it up.
www.newscientist.com/article/dn16095-its-confirmed-matter-is-merely-vacuum-fluctuations.html#.U4osKfl_vD8
books.google.nl/books?id=DyhyFSL7bNUC&pg=PP1&dq=intitle:Probing+intitle:the+intitle:Quantum+intitle:Vacuum&hl=nl#v=onepage&q&f=false
User avatar #70398 - alltimetens (05/31/2014) [-]
I know that they come from empty space.

But that does not prove that empty space is their definite origin.
User avatar #70400 - kanadetenshi (05/31/2014) [-]
That's akin to saying that just because poop comes out of your anus that doesn't mean that that's proof that me eating the food was the definite origin. It could've been that a demon planted that food inside me and gave us the illusion that we ate the food.

This is why we have principles such as occam's razor where the hypothesis with the fewest assumptions is the preferred one.
User avatar #70401 - alltimetens (05/31/2014) [-]
Exactly. Poop began as food, and food began as something else.

Saying that virtual particles have one definite origin is one-sided and ignorant.
#70309 - That hasn't anything to do with what I said. I. Am. S…  [+] (35 new replies) 05/31/2014 on Religion Board 0
#70310 - vanityfair (05/31/2014) [-]
Give me a third party factor that could not be accommodated then regarding the existence of God.
User avatar #70311 - alltimetens (05/31/2014) [-]
The reasoning behind a god in the first place!

The universe/multiverse/existence isn't infinite. Therefore, that universe/multiverse/existence would need something that is infinite to create it!

That means that something that is eternal has to have created all in existence. And because that thing created everything, then it would know everything that there is to know!

Try putting that in a mathematical equation.
User avatar #70336 - kanadetenshi (05/31/2014) [-]
I already refuted that oversimplistic argument. Your argument implies a linear timeline of cause and effect, time doesn't work that way.
User avatar #70374 - alltimetens (05/31/2014) [-]
I already proved that your counterargument has just enough evidence as my initial argument.

You have refuted nothing.
User avatar #70405 - kanadetenshi (05/31/2014) [-]
I don't want to prove it wrong at all, i never said that. I asked for evidence, that's not trying to prove anything wrong.
User avatar #70408 - alltimetens (05/31/2014) [-]
So what exactly are you doing by throwing out all of these counterclaims that are aimed at disproving my argument?
User avatar #70410 - kanadetenshi (05/31/2014) [-]
You asked for an alternative explanation with evidence so i gave you one. What you're doing is side-stepping the fact that you failed to provide logically proof that god exists.
User avatar #70412 - alltimetens (05/31/2014) [-]
Your alternatives do not have any definite solutions.
User avatar #70413 - kanadetenshi (05/31/2014) [-]
The alternatives provide evidence that god isn't needed for a universe to come into existence.
User avatar #70431 - alltimetens (05/31/2014) [-]
Actually, the alternatives only indicate that the universe can be indirectly created by the creator.

Meaning, the apparatus such as virtual particles themselves are not definite.
User avatar #70404 - kanadetenshi (05/31/2014) [-]
You completely missed the point, what i'm talking about is that you're adding a whole bunch of useless "what ifs" at a substantiated fact in science that doesn't need anything added. Just like basic biology doesn't need fairies added.

What you're doing is the god of the gaps argument, basically even if i showed you an origin before this you're going to ask for another origin and then i give another one and you ask for another one and we're going on forever, that's not how science works that's special pleading.

Principles such as "before and "after" in a phenomena that violated time makes no sense, there's no logical reason to apply a possible origin before empty space because empty space violates time, it's like asking that there must be something that is south of the south-pole, it's stupid.
User avatar #70407 - alltimetens (05/31/2014) [-]
These "what ifs" aren't useless at all. That means that no matter what evidence you give me, you cannot prove the me that the Law of Causality is violated.

If we go on an endless chain of "what ifs" then that means that energy/matter is recycled throughout.
User avatar #70409 - kanadetenshi (05/31/2014) [-]
That doesn't mean that causality isn't violated you dumbfuck, that just means that you're special pleading. Like i said there is no such thing as before and after in empty space.
User avatar #70375 - kanadetenshi (05/31/2014) [-]
No it didn't you merely said that we don't know if it comes from ex nihilo which is an irrelevant statement because i was merely talking about cause and effect which quantum mechanics violates.
User avatar #70377 - alltimetens (05/31/2014) [-]
Oh, so when I make unsubstantiated arguments it's a sin but when you do the same your argument is plausible? That's not how it works, my friend.
User avatar #70379 - kanadetenshi (05/31/2014) [-]
Except quantum mechanics isn't unsubstantiated.
User avatar #70382 - alltimetens (05/31/2014) [-]
I'm not saying quantum mechanics isn't substantiated; I'm saying that the small portion of quantum mechanics that you used as the basis of your argument is contradictory.

Why is it contradictory?

Because you criticize my arguments for believing in something with no evidence, yet your ideologies are based off of just as much evidence.
User avatar #70384 - kanadetenshi (05/31/2014) [-]
Except i have provided evidence of the fact that virtual particles pop in and out of existence from zero energy fields. Just because you're to stupid to understand this doesn't mean it doesn't have evidence. What you're trying to do is shift the burden of proof because you know you have no arguments for your irrational god position.
User avatar #70385 - alltimetens (05/31/2014) [-]
I already refuted your zero energy fields argument.

And of course I'm going to have to demand evidence from my adversary who has criticized my lack thereof.
User avatar #70389 - kanadetenshi (05/31/2014) [-]
And i'm merely showing you facts, i don't have to provide any alternative explanations because i'm not the one making the claim that god doesn't exist, you are the one claiming god does exist and you have failed to give one logical argument or evidence for it's existence.
User avatar #70390 - alltimetens (05/31/2014) [-]
If you're going to counter my claim, then you have to provide evidence. It doesn't matter who is making the claim, it matters who has provided the best evidence.


User avatar #70393 - kanadetenshi (05/31/2014) [-]
I don't even have to counter your claim because you haven't given any evidence of your claim in the first place.
User avatar #70395 - alltimetens (05/31/2014) [-]
Yet I still manage to counter every single "substantiated" counter you threw at me.

You still contradicted yourself because you criticize me for not having evidence but you don't have any evidence of your own. We are essentially leading an argument that has absolutely no purpose because we don't have enough knowledge on either side.
User avatar #70397 - kanadetenshi (05/31/2014) [-]
No you didn't, you're simply showing how ignorant you are regarding the field of physics.
User avatar #70399 - alltimetens (05/31/2014) [-]
Actually, I have, which proves that you have no argumentative skill/background.

If I'm going to make an unsubstantiated claim, then you better give me a substantiated counter that proves me wrong.

For example, I can say that Lamarck's Theory of Evolution is correct, but in order to counter that, you have to say that Darwin's Theory is correct and then provide me with evidence as a way to prove me wrong.
User avatar #70402 - kanadetenshi (05/31/2014) [-]
Uhm no that's not how it works at all.

I can say that Lamarck's theory of evolution is correct, but someone else will ask for evidence that it's correct. They don't have to provide an alternative explanation because they aren't making any claims, they're asking for evidence.
User avatar #70403 - alltimetens (05/31/2014) [-]
But isn't applicable to this argument.

I'm giving a proposition.

You want to prove it wrong.

In order to prove it wrong, you have to provide evidence that it is wrong, otherwise I am not convinced.
User avatar #70388 - kanadetenshi (05/31/2014) [-]
No you didn't, you only showed your poor understanding of physics. You claim that zero energy universes don't explain whether or not they come from nothing while a zero energy universe IS NOTHING BY DEFINITION and particles come from this state hence violating causality. It's very likely that empty space is a default position that didn't came from anything because it's NOTHING.

I already showed you evidence that time and causality can be violated even without quantum mechanics, or are you going to deny the very principles of relativity aswell?
User avatar #70391 - alltimetens (05/31/2014) [-]
Nothing coming from nothing doesn't violate causality.
User avatar #70392 - kanadetenshi (05/31/2014) [-]
But something coming from a zero energy field does, and black holes do, and particle-wave duality does, and even time delay does.
User avatar #70394 - alltimetens (05/31/2014) [-]
You still have not provided sufficient evidence that they have originated there to begin with.

Virtual particles could have originated from zero energy universes, but what proof do you bring that states that they didn't come from another source?
User avatar #70396 - kanadetenshi (05/31/2014) [-]
Seriously the evidence is everywhere, physcists have done literally experiments that confirm that they come from empty space, read a book, read a journal, read anything based on physics and you'll find evidence, it's not rocket science to look it up.
www.newscientist.com/article/dn16095-its-confirmed-matter-is-merely-vacuum-fluctuations.html#.U4osKfl_vD8
books.google.nl/books?id=DyhyFSL7bNUC&pg=PP1&dq=intitle:Probing+intitle:the+intitle:Quantum+intitle:Vacuum&hl=nl#v=onepage&q&f=false
User avatar #70398 - alltimetens (05/31/2014) [-]
I know that they come from empty space.

But that does not prove that empty space is their definite origin.
User avatar #70400 - kanadetenshi (05/31/2014) [-]
That's akin to saying that just because poop comes out of your anus that doesn't mean that that's proof that me eating the food was the definite origin. It could've been that a demon planted that food inside me and gave us the illusion that we ate the food.

This is why we have principles such as occam's razor where the hypothesis with the fewest assumptions is the preferred one.
User avatar #70401 - alltimetens (05/31/2014) [-]
Exactly. Poop began as food, and food began as something else.

Saying that virtual particles have one definite origin is one-sided and ignorant.
#70306 - Where have I said that belief in God affects a mathematical constant? 05/31/2014 on Religion Board 0
#70304 - You're still wrong. Whether or not I need God does no…  [+] (2 new replies) 05/31/2014 on Religion Board 0
#70305 - vanityfair (05/31/2014) [-]
That's exactly what I said, "Whether or not I need God does not affect how real that God is.", you were saying things contrary to that.

Mathematical models can be perfectly accurate as long as enough time and information is put into them. Mathematics is applied logic, saying things cannot be represented mathematically is by definition illogical.

Show me how I've lost.
User avatar #70306 - alltimetens (05/31/2014) [-]
Where have I said that belief in God affects a mathematical constant?
#70301 - - - I'm giving you an example_ An example o…  [+] (4 new replies) 05/31/2014 on Religion Board 0
#70302 - vanityfair (05/31/2014) [-]
And that example is not valid, you can't say something that is irrelevant to the problem cannot be represented mathematically, as it is irrelevant. That that is tangible and physical can be represented mathematically. Only tangible and physical things affect the existence of things. Therefore the existence of things can be determined via mathematics. The need for something has nothing to do with it's existence, doesn't matter how much someone may need God in their time of need, or how much they want it, it has absolutely no impact on God's existence.
User avatar #70304 - alltimetens (05/31/2014) [-]
You're still wrong.

Whether or not I need God does not affect how real that God is.

Mathematical models are rarely accurate representations.

Please stop arguing with me. You lost.
#70305 - vanityfair (05/31/2014) [-]
That's exactly what I said, "Whether or not I need God does not affect how real that God is.", you were saying things contrary to that.

Mathematical models can be perfectly accurate as long as enough time and information is put into them. Mathematics is applied logic, saying things cannot be represented mathematically is by definition illogical.

Show me how I've lost.
User avatar #70306 - alltimetens (05/31/2014) [-]
Where have I said that belief in God affects a mathematical constant?
#70299 - I'm recalling statistics. Like I said, there is a 50…  [+] (6 new replies) 05/31/2014 on Religion Board 0
#70300 - vanityfair (05/31/2014) [-]
Why you would/would not need an apple is entirely irrelevant to this. Here you can simply look at the evidence on whether you do or do not have it, whether you need it or not is entirely irrelevant. A need for something is not physical or tangible, and as such has no place in deciding whether or not something physical or tangible exists, and as such can be ignored.
User avatar #70301 - alltimetens (05/31/2014) [-]
--

I'm giving you an
example_

An example on why you're wrong.
#70302 - vanityfair (05/31/2014) [-]
And that example is not valid, you can't say something that is irrelevant to the problem cannot be represented mathematically, as it is irrelevant. That that is tangible and physical can be represented mathematically. Only tangible and physical things affect the existence of things. Therefore the existence of things can be determined via mathematics. The need for something has nothing to do with it's existence, doesn't matter how much someone may need God in their time of need, or how much they want it, it has absolutely no impact on God's existence.
User avatar #70304 - alltimetens (05/31/2014) [-]
You're still wrong.

Whether or not I need God does not affect how real that God is.

Mathematical models are rarely accurate representations.

Please stop arguing with me. You lost.
#70305 - vanityfair (05/31/2014) [-]
That's exactly what I said, "Whether or not I need God does not affect how real that God is.", you were saying things contrary to that.

Mathematical models can be perfectly accurate as long as enough time and information is put into them. Mathematics is applied logic, saying things cannot be represented mathematically is by definition illogical.

Show me how I've lost.
User avatar #70306 - alltimetens (05/31/2014) [-]
Where have I said that belief in God affects a mathematical constant?
#70297 - That's what I've been trying to say! You can make m…  [+] (8 new replies) 05/31/2014 on Religion Board 0
#70298 - vanityfair (05/31/2014) [-]
Oh, well sorry for misunderstanding that.

And I vehemently disagree with that, the whole field of analytical philosophy shows that philosophical proofs can be obtained from anything from the ground up, using mathematics. I don't see why anything would be so special as to be exempt from this, as to say beyond logic itself, unless you can find something that is truly beyond all logic and the laws of the universe and comprehension itself, then I'll have to disagree with you there.
User avatar #70299 - alltimetens (05/31/2014) [-]
I'm recalling statistics.

Like I said, there is a 50% mathematical probability that I have an apple in my hand because you have the same amount of evidence that I do/do not have an apple in my hand.

HOWEVER, just because, mathematically speaking, I am 50% holding an apple, that doesn't mean that there are other factors that are not accomodated when you use a mathematical model to substantiate a philosophical/statistical claim.

Mathematics doesn't accomodate to questions/reasoning such as "Why would I need an apple in my hand to begin with?"
#70300 - vanityfair (05/31/2014) [-]
Why you would/would not need an apple is entirely irrelevant to this. Here you can simply look at the evidence on whether you do or do not have it, whether you need it or not is entirely irrelevant. A need for something is not physical or tangible, and as such has no place in deciding whether or not something physical or tangible exists, and as such can be ignored.
User avatar #70301 - alltimetens (05/31/2014) [-]
--

I'm giving you an
example_

An example on why you're wrong.
#70302 - vanityfair (05/31/2014) [-]
And that example is not valid, you can't say something that is irrelevant to the problem cannot be represented mathematically, as it is irrelevant. That that is tangible and physical can be represented mathematically. Only tangible and physical things affect the existence of things. Therefore the existence of things can be determined via mathematics. The need for something has nothing to do with it's existence, doesn't matter how much someone may need God in their time of need, or how much they want it, it has absolutely no impact on God's existence.
User avatar #70304 - alltimetens (05/31/2014) [-]
You're still wrong.

Whether or not I need God does not affect how real that God is.

Mathematical models are rarely accurate representations.

Please stop arguing with me. You lost.
#70305 - vanityfair (05/31/2014) [-]
That's exactly what I said, "Whether or not I need God does not affect how real that God is.", you were saying things contrary to that.

Mathematical models can be perfectly accurate as long as enough time and information is put into them. Mathematics is applied logic, saying things cannot be represented mathematically is by definition illogical.

Show me how I've lost.
User avatar #70306 - alltimetens (05/31/2014) [-]
Where have I said that belief in God affects a mathematical constant?
#70295 - 1.) Actually, it is. But as I said, I won't get into it. …  [+] (10 new replies) 05/31/2014 on Religion Board 0
#70296 - vanityfair (05/31/2014) [-]
What I don't understand is that you agree that there is absolutism in mathematical rationalities and rationalities, and agree that problems can be considered mathematically, but believe there is there is no absolutism in these problems. You seem to miss a step here where you declare there is an intrinsic difference between what can be represented mathematically and what cannot.
User avatar #70297 - alltimetens (05/31/2014) [-]
That's what I've been trying to say!

You can make mathematical models, but that doesn't mean that they are true/are applicable to what is actually happening.
#70298 - vanityfair (05/31/2014) [-]
Oh, well sorry for misunderstanding that.

And I vehemently disagree with that, the whole field of analytical philosophy shows that philosophical proofs can be obtained from anything from the ground up, using mathematics. I don't see why anything would be so special as to be exempt from this, as to say beyond logic itself, unless you can find something that is truly beyond all logic and the laws of the universe and comprehension itself, then I'll have to disagree with you there.
User avatar #70299 - alltimetens (05/31/2014) [-]
I'm recalling statistics.

Like I said, there is a 50% mathematical probability that I have an apple in my hand because you have the same amount of evidence that I do/do not have an apple in my hand.

HOWEVER, just because, mathematically speaking, I am 50% holding an apple, that doesn't mean that there are other factors that are not accomodated when you use a mathematical model to substantiate a philosophical/statistical claim.

Mathematics doesn't accomodate to questions/reasoning such as "Why would I need an apple in my hand to begin with?"
#70300 - vanityfair (05/31/2014) [-]
Why you would/would not need an apple is entirely irrelevant to this. Here you can simply look at the evidence on whether you do or do not have it, whether you need it or not is entirely irrelevant. A need for something is not physical or tangible, and as such has no place in deciding whether or not something physical or tangible exists, and as such can be ignored.
User avatar #70301 - alltimetens (05/31/2014) [-]
--

I'm giving you an
example_

An example on why you're wrong.
#70302 - vanityfair (05/31/2014) [-]
And that example is not valid, you can't say something that is irrelevant to the problem cannot be represented mathematically, as it is irrelevant. That that is tangible and physical can be represented mathematically. Only tangible and physical things affect the existence of things. Therefore the existence of things can be determined via mathematics. The need for something has nothing to do with it's existence, doesn't matter how much someone may need God in their time of need, or how much they want it, it has absolutely no impact on God's existence.
User avatar #70304 - alltimetens (05/31/2014) [-]
You're still wrong.

Whether or not I need God does not affect how real that God is.

Mathematical models are rarely accurate representations.

Please stop arguing with me. You lost.
#70305 - vanityfair (05/31/2014) [-]
That's exactly what I said, "Whether or not I need God does not affect how real that God is.", you were saying things contrary to that.

Mathematical models can be perfectly accurate as long as enough time and information is put into them. Mathematics is applied logic, saying things cannot be represented mathematically is by definition illogical.

Show me how I've lost.
User avatar #70306 - alltimetens (05/31/2014) [-]
Where have I said that belief in God affects a mathematical constant?
#70292 - Actually it does. If you use a series of logical cha…  [+] (1 new reply) 05/31/2014 on Religion Board 0
User avatar #70294 - aczzoh (05/31/2014) [-]
So you're saying the simple fact that an idea answers a question automatically makes it the correct answer?

Explain and provide evidence for this 'solution'.
#70290 - 1.) God being controversial doesn't make it non-corellated wit…  [+] (12 new replies) 05/31/2014 on Religion Board 0
#70293 - vanityfair (05/31/2014) [-]
I don't really see how it would oversimplify it? It's not that much of a complex issue due to our lack of information. Bertrand Russel started analytical philosophy which uses mathematics to solve philosophical problems, there is no reason it could not be applied to the existence of a God.

That final statement is irrational as a whole, there is no evidence for SM, and there is evidence for Darwinian Evolution. Thusly it is irrational to believe in SM, and it is also irrational to believe in Lamark's theory of evolution, despite it being closer to the truth.
User avatar #70295 - alltimetens (05/31/2014) [-]
1.) Actually, it is. But as I said, I won't get into it.

2.) You keep missing my point.


SM: Just as much proof that they don't exist as there is proof that Darwin's Theory of Evolution.

Lamarck's Theory: Is wrong, but has certain truths.

If you honestly can't see that some things are more rational/irrational than others, then I don't know what to say to you.
#70296 - vanityfair (05/31/2014) [-]
What I don't understand is that you agree that there is absolutism in mathematical rationalities and rationalities, and agree that problems can be considered mathematically, but believe there is there is no absolutism in these problems. You seem to miss a step here where you declare there is an intrinsic difference between what can be represented mathematically and what cannot.
User avatar #70297 - alltimetens (05/31/2014) [-]
That's what I've been trying to say!

You can make mathematical models, but that doesn't mean that they are true/are applicable to what is actually happening.
#70298 - vanityfair (05/31/2014) [-]
Oh, well sorry for misunderstanding that.

And I vehemently disagree with that, the whole field of analytical philosophy shows that philosophical proofs can be obtained from anything from the ground up, using mathematics. I don't see why anything would be so special as to be exempt from this, as to say beyond logic itself, unless you can find something that is truly beyond all logic and the laws of the universe and comprehension itself, then I'll have to disagree with you there.
User avatar #70299 - alltimetens (05/31/2014) [-]
I'm recalling statistics.

Like I said, there is a 50% mathematical probability that I have an apple in my hand because you have the same amount of evidence that I do/do not have an apple in my hand.

HOWEVER, just because, mathematically speaking, I am 50% holding an apple, that doesn't mean that there are other factors that are not accomodated when you use a mathematical model to substantiate a philosophical/statistical claim.

Mathematics doesn't accomodate to questions/reasoning such as "Why would I need an apple in my hand to begin with?"
#70300 - vanityfair (05/31/2014) [-]
Why you would/would not need an apple is entirely irrelevant to this. Here you can simply look at the evidence on whether you do or do not have it, whether you need it or not is entirely irrelevant. A need for something is not physical or tangible, and as such has no place in deciding whether or not something physical or tangible exists, and as such can be ignored.
User avatar #70301 - alltimetens (05/31/2014) [-]
--

I'm giving you an
example_

An example on why you're wrong.
#70302 - vanityfair (05/31/2014) [-]
And that example is not valid, you can't say something that is irrelevant to the problem cannot be represented mathematically, as it is irrelevant. That that is tangible and physical can be represented mathematically. Only tangible and physical things affect the existence of things. Therefore the existence of things can be determined via mathematics. The need for something has nothing to do with it's existence, doesn't matter how much someone may need God in their time of need, or how much they want it, it has absolutely no impact on God's existence.
User avatar #70304 - alltimetens (05/31/2014) [-]
You're still wrong.

Whether or not I need God does not affect how real that God is.

Mathematical models are rarely accurate representations.

Please stop arguing with me. You lost.
#70305 - vanityfair (05/31/2014) [-]
That's exactly what I said, "Whether or not I need God does not affect how real that God is.", you were saying things contrary to that.

Mathematical models can be perfectly accurate as long as enough time and information is put into them. Mathematics is applied logic, saying things cannot be represented mathematically is by definition illogical.

Show me how I've lost.
User avatar #70306 - alltimetens (05/31/2014) [-]
Where have I said that belief in God affects a mathematical constant?
#70285 - Okay, I understand your point. But you're missing a …  [+] (3 new replies) 05/31/2014 on Religion Board 0
User avatar #70291 - aczzoh (05/31/2014) [-]
It is also irrational to believe in something just because it answers a question you have. Sure the idea of a God does answer questions, but that by itself doesn't make it a valid answer, or have any effect on whether or not it's true. You need evidence to prove that your answer is correct.

So, the fact that the existence of something doesn't answer any big question doesn't make it any less rational, and the fact that something does answer that question doesn't make it any more rational.

So again, if we're using evidence to decide what we should believe in, both the unicorn and God should be looked at the same way.
User avatar #70292 - alltimetens (05/31/2014) [-]
Actually it does.

If you use a series of logical chains, then you will find that the only solution to this dilemma is a God.
User avatar #70294 - aczzoh (05/31/2014) [-]
So you're saying the simple fact that an idea answers a question automatically makes it the correct answer?

Explain and provide evidence for this 'solution'.
#70283 - Thats... debatable to say the least. But assuming you're right…  [+] (14 new replies) 05/31/2014 on Religion Board 0
#70286 - vanityfair (05/31/2014) [-]
I don't see why we cannot treat this as a mathematical problem? There are a finite amount of inputs and there must be an output in the form of a world-view or ideology that makes the most sense. Just because there's controversey around a problem it does not mean that there is not a rational answer, happens all the time in physics and maths.

It is irrational to believe in flying subatomic monkeys, however it is rational to believe in Darwinian Evolution. These are two absolutes in the form of an irrational and a rational, however if you presented two irrationals such as flying subatomic monkeys and floating planet sized space bears, one is not more or less irrational than the other. They are simply both irrational.
User avatar #70290 - alltimetens (05/31/2014) [-]
1.) God being controversial doesn't make it non-corellated with mathematics; it is the fact that viewing from a mathematical perspective completely oversimplifies the matter and therefore ignores many key factors that substantiate the existence of a God.

2.) No except it is rational to believe that there aren't subatomic monkies. That's the point you missed.

There is no evidence to support the notion that such monkies exist just as there is no evidence to support that Darwin's Theory of Evolution is incorrect.

Look at it like this:

The amount of evidence to prove that there are no subatomic monkies is equal to or even exceeds evidence for Darwin's Theory of Evolution.
#70293 - vanityfair (05/31/2014) [-]
I don't really see how it would oversimplify it? It's not that much of a complex issue due to our lack of information. Bertrand Russel started analytical philosophy which uses mathematics to solve philosophical problems, there is no reason it could not be applied to the existence of a God.

That final statement is irrational as a whole, there is no evidence for SM, and there is evidence for Darwinian Evolution. Thusly it is irrational to believe in SM, and it is also irrational to believe in Lamark's theory of evolution, despite it being closer to the truth.
User avatar #70295 - alltimetens (05/31/2014) [-]
1.) Actually, it is. But as I said, I won't get into it.

2.) You keep missing my point.


SM: Just as much proof that they don't exist as there is proof that Darwin's Theory of Evolution.

Lamarck's Theory: Is wrong, but has certain truths.

If you honestly can't see that some things are more rational/irrational than others, then I don't know what to say to you.
#70296 - vanityfair (05/31/2014) [-]
What I don't understand is that you agree that there is absolutism in mathematical rationalities and rationalities, and agree that problems can be considered mathematically, but believe there is there is no absolutism in these problems. You seem to miss a step here where you declare there is an intrinsic difference between what can be represented mathematically and what cannot.
User avatar #70297 - alltimetens (05/31/2014) [-]
That's what I've been trying to say!

You can make mathematical models, but that doesn't mean that they are true/are applicable to what is actually happening.
#70298 - vanityfair (05/31/2014) [-]
Oh, well sorry for misunderstanding that.

And I vehemently disagree with that, the whole field of analytical philosophy shows that philosophical proofs can be obtained from anything from the ground up, using mathematics. I don't see why anything would be so special as to be exempt from this, as to say beyond logic itself, unless you can find something that is truly beyond all logic and the laws of the universe and comprehension itself, then I'll have to disagree with you there.
User avatar #70299 - alltimetens (05/31/2014) [-]
I'm recalling statistics.

Like I said, there is a 50% mathematical probability that I have an apple in my hand because you have the same amount of evidence that I do/do not have an apple in my hand.

HOWEVER, just because, mathematically speaking, I am 50% holding an apple, that doesn't mean that there are other factors that are not accomodated when you use a mathematical model to substantiate a philosophical/statistical claim.

Mathematics doesn't accomodate to questions/reasoning such as "Why would I need an apple in my hand to begin with?"
#70300 - vanityfair (05/31/2014) [-]
Why you would/would not need an apple is entirely irrelevant to this. Here you can simply look at the evidence on whether you do or do not have it, whether you need it or not is entirely irrelevant. A need for something is not physical or tangible, and as such has no place in deciding whether or not something physical or tangible exists, and as such can be ignored.
User avatar #70301 - alltimetens (05/31/2014) [-]
--

I'm giving you an
example_

An example on why you're wrong.
#70302 - vanityfair (05/31/2014) [-]
And that example is not valid, you can't say something that is irrelevant to the problem cannot be represented mathematically, as it is irrelevant. That that is tangible and physical can be represented mathematically. Only tangible and physical things affect the existence of things. Therefore the existence of things can be determined via mathematics. The need for something has nothing to do with it's existence, doesn't matter how much someone may need God in their time of need, or how much they want it, it has absolutely no impact on God's existence.
User avatar #70304 - alltimetens (05/31/2014) [-]
You're still wrong.

Whether or not I need God does not affect how real that God is.

Mathematical models are rarely accurate representations.

Please stop arguing with me. You lost.
#70305 - vanityfair (05/31/2014) [-]
That's exactly what I said, "Whether or not I need God does not affect how real that God is.", you were saying things contrary to that.

Mathematical models can be perfectly accurate as long as enough time and information is put into them. Mathematics is applied logic, saying things cannot be represented mathematically is by definition illogical.

Show me how I've lost.
User avatar #70306 - alltimetens (05/31/2014) [-]
Where have I said that belief in God affects a mathematical constant?
#70282 - You said the firt have is "pure nonsense" L…  [+] (6 new replies) 05/31/2014 on Religion Board 0
User avatar #70284 - aczzoh (05/31/2014) [-]
And it was. I guess we're gonna complete divert from the Heaven/Hell point right? What a surprise.

Explain how it doesn't make any logical sense for there to be a unicorn, and how this is not also true for a God.

Atheists compare God to unicorns to a point. There is no evidence for the existence of a unicorn, which is probably why most don't believe in them. There is no evidence for the existence of God, so you should treat him as you do the unicorn.
User avatar #70287 - aczzoh (05/31/2014) [-]
prove a point*
User avatar #70285 - alltimetens (05/31/2014) [-]
Okay, I understand your point.

But you're missing a key factor.

The existence of a unicorn is not significant; it doesn't yield any worthwhile explanations for the universe's most fundamental questions.

The existence of a God, for instance, does answer the universe's most fundamental questions.

Therefore, believing in a unicorn is useless. You can choose to believe it if you want, but that wouldn't mean anything.


Basically what I'm trying to say is that if a unicorn exists, then that's cool and all but it doesn't provide us with answers.
User avatar #70291 - aczzoh (05/31/2014) [-]
It is also irrational to believe in something just because it answers a question you have. Sure the idea of a God does answer questions, but that by itself doesn't make it a valid answer, or have any effect on whether or not it's true. You need evidence to prove that your answer is correct.

So, the fact that the existence of something doesn't answer any big question doesn't make it any less rational, and the fact that something does answer that question doesn't make it any more rational.

So again, if we're using evidence to decide what we should believe in, both the unicorn and God should be looked at the same way.
User avatar #70292 - alltimetens (05/31/2014) [-]
Actually it does.

If you use a series of logical chains, then you will find that the only solution to this dilemma is a God.
User avatar #70294 - aczzoh (05/31/2014) [-]
So you're saying the simple fact that an idea answers a question automatically makes it the correct answer?

Explain and provide evidence for this 'solution'.
#70278 - It's not even about Heaven or Hell. It just doesn't m…  [+] (8 new replies) 05/31/2014 on Religion Board 0
User avatar #70281 - aczzoh (05/31/2014) [-]
The entire second half of your post was about the consequences of believing vs not believing, which you stated are Heaven, Hell, or neither. So how is it 'not even about Heaven or Hell'?

How so?
User avatar #70282 - alltimetens (05/31/2014) [-]
You said the firt have is "pure nonsense"

Like I said, despite the evidence for God being relative to the evidence for a Fairy/Unicorn, a God actually means something whereas it doesn't make any logical sense for there to be a unicorn.
User avatar #70284 - aczzoh (05/31/2014) [-]
And it was. I guess we're gonna complete divert from the Heaven/Hell point right? What a surprise.

Explain how it doesn't make any logical sense for there to be a unicorn, and how this is not also true for a God.

Atheists compare God to unicorns to a point. There is no evidence for the existence of a unicorn, which is probably why most don't believe in them. There is no evidence for the existence of God, so you should treat him as you do the unicorn.
User avatar #70287 - aczzoh (05/31/2014) [-]
prove a point*
User avatar #70285 - alltimetens (05/31/2014) [-]
Okay, I understand your point.

But you're missing a key factor.

The existence of a unicorn is not significant; it doesn't yield any worthwhile explanations for the universe's most fundamental questions.

The existence of a God, for instance, does answer the universe's most fundamental questions.

Therefore, believing in a unicorn is useless. You can choose to believe it if you want, but that wouldn't mean anything.


Basically what I'm trying to say is that if a unicorn exists, then that's cool and all but it doesn't provide us with answers.
User avatar #70291 - aczzoh (05/31/2014) [-]
It is also irrational to believe in something just because it answers a question you have. Sure the idea of a God does answer questions, but that by itself doesn't make it a valid answer, or have any effect on whether or not it's true. You need evidence to prove that your answer is correct.

So, the fact that the existence of something doesn't answer any big question doesn't make it any less rational, and the fact that something does answer that question doesn't make it any more rational.

So again, if we're using evidence to decide what we should believe in, both the unicorn and God should be looked at the same way.
User avatar #70292 - alltimetens (05/31/2014) [-]
Actually it does.

If you use a series of logical chains, then you will find that the only solution to this dilemma is a God.
User avatar #70294 - aczzoh (05/31/2014) [-]
So you're saying the simple fact that an idea answers a question automatically makes it the correct answer?

Explain and provide evidence for this 'solution'.
#70276 - 1.) I disagree but I won't get into that. 2.) I also …  [+] (16 new replies) 05/31/2014 on Religion Board 0
#70279 - vanityfair (05/31/2014) [-]
How so? Saying something is semi irrational, or that something is more or less irrational than something else couldn't make sense. It is rational to say 2+2 is equal to 4, saying it is equal to 4.5 is wrong, saying it is equal to 100 is also wrong, they are both equally wrong, neither make any sense. They are both equally irrational answers even if 100 is further away from the rational answer.
User avatar #70283 - alltimetens (05/31/2014) [-]
Thats... debatable to say the least. But assuming you're right:

1.) That paradigm/ideology is not applicable to controversial topics such as the existence of God.

2.) It may be true in math, but certain beliefs, for instance, are more irrational than others.

For example:

It is more irrational to say that there are flying subatomic monkies than, say, to imply that Darwin's Theory of Evolution is incorrect.

There can be two wrongs. But whichever wrong has the greater probability of being right is the least irrational of the pair.
#70286 - vanityfair (05/31/2014) [-]
I don't see why we cannot treat this as a mathematical problem? There are a finite amount of inputs and there must be an output in the form of a world-view or ideology that makes the most sense. Just because there's controversey around a problem it does not mean that there is not a rational answer, happens all the time in physics and maths.

It is irrational to believe in flying subatomic monkeys, however it is rational to believe in Darwinian Evolution. These are two absolutes in the form of an irrational and a rational, however if you presented two irrationals such as flying subatomic monkeys and floating planet sized space bears, one is not more or less irrational than the other. They are simply both irrational.
User avatar #70290 - alltimetens (05/31/2014) [-]
1.) God being controversial doesn't make it non-corellated with mathematics; it is the fact that viewing from a mathematical perspective completely oversimplifies the matter and therefore ignores many key factors that substantiate the existence of a God.

2.) No except it is rational to believe that there aren't subatomic monkies. That's the point you missed.

There is no evidence to support the notion that such monkies exist just as there is no evidence to support that Darwin's Theory of Evolution is incorrect.

Look at it like this:

The amount of evidence to prove that there are no subatomic monkies is equal to or even exceeds evidence for Darwin's Theory of Evolution.
#70293 - vanityfair (05/31/2014) [-]
I don't really see how it would oversimplify it? It's not that much of a complex issue due to our lack of information. Bertrand Russel started analytical philosophy which uses mathematics to solve philosophical problems, there is no reason it could not be applied to the existence of a God.

That final statement is irrational as a whole, there is no evidence for SM, and there is evidence for Darwinian Evolution. Thusly it is irrational to believe in SM, and it is also irrational to believe in Lamark's theory of evolution, despite it being closer to the truth.
User avatar #70295 - alltimetens (05/31/2014) [-]
1.) Actually, it is. But as I said, I won't get into it.

2.) You keep missing my point.


SM: Just as much proof that they don't exist as there is proof that Darwin's Theory of Evolution.

Lamarck's Theory: Is wrong, but has certain truths.

If you honestly can't see that some things are more rational/irrational than others, then I don't know what to say to you.
#70296 - vanityfair (05/31/2014) [-]
What I don't understand is that you agree that there is absolutism in mathematical rationalities and rationalities, and agree that problems can be considered mathematically, but believe there is there is no absolutism in these problems. You seem to miss a step here where you declare there is an intrinsic difference between what can be represented mathematically and what cannot.
User avatar #70297 - alltimetens (05/31/2014) [-]
That's what I've been trying to say!

You can make mathematical models, but that doesn't mean that they are true/are applicable to what is actually happening.
#70298 - vanityfair (05/31/2014) [-]
Oh, well sorry for misunderstanding that.

And I vehemently disagree with that, the whole field of analytical philosophy shows that philosophical proofs can be obtained from anything from the ground up, using mathematics. I don't see why anything would be so special as to be exempt from this, as to say beyond logic itself, unless you can find something that is truly beyond all logic and the laws of the universe and comprehension itself, then I'll have to disagree with you there.
User avatar #70299 - alltimetens (05/31/2014) [-]
I'm recalling statistics.

Like I said, there is a 50% mathematical probability that I have an apple in my hand because you have the same amount of evidence that I do/do not have an apple in my hand.

HOWEVER, just because, mathematically speaking, I am 50% holding an apple, that doesn't mean that there are other factors that are not accomodated when you use a mathematical model to substantiate a philosophical/statistical claim.

Mathematics doesn't accomodate to questions/reasoning such as "Why would I need an apple in my hand to begin with?"
#70300 - vanityfair (05/31/2014) [-]
Why you would/would not need an apple is entirely irrelevant to this. Here you can simply look at the evidence on whether you do or do not have it, whether you need it or not is entirely irrelevant. A need for something is not physical or tangible, and as such has no place in deciding whether or not something physical or tangible exists, and as such can be ignored.
User avatar #70301 - alltimetens (05/31/2014) [-]
--

I'm giving you an
example_

An example on why you're wrong.
#70302 - vanityfair (05/31/2014) [-]
And that example is not valid, you can't say something that is irrelevant to the problem cannot be represented mathematically, as it is irrelevant. That that is tangible and physical can be represented mathematically. Only tangible and physical things affect the existence of things. Therefore the existence of things can be determined via mathematics. The need for something has nothing to do with it's existence, doesn't matter how much someone may need God in their time of need, or how much they want it, it has absolutely no impact on God's existence.
User avatar #70304 - alltimetens (05/31/2014) [-]
You're still wrong.

Whether or not I need God does not affect how real that God is.

Mathematical models are rarely accurate representations.

Please stop arguing with me. You lost.
#70305 - vanityfair (05/31/2014) [-]
That's exactly what I said, "Whether or not I need God does not affect how real that God is.", you were saying things contrary to that.

Mathematical models can be perfectly accurate as long as enough time and information is put into them. Mathematics is applied logic, saying things cannot be represented mathematically is by definition illogical.

Show me how I've lost.
User avatar #70306 - alltimetens (05/31/2014) [-]
Where have I said that belief in God affects a mathematical constant?
#70274 - Why is it irrational to believe in a God? And which d…  [+] (18 new replies) 05/31/2014 on Religion Board 0
#70275 - vanityfair (05/31/2014) [-]
It has no evidence, and raises far more large questions than it answers.

I don't think things come in degrees of irrationality, I think it's more absolute than that. Something is either rational, or irrational, simple as that.
User avatar #70276 - alltimetens (05/31/2014) [-]
1.) I disagree but I won't get into that.

2.) I also disagree.

There are some things more irrational than others.
#70279 - vanityfair (05/31/2014) [-]
How so? Saying something is semi irrational, or that something is more or less irrational than something else couldn't make sense. It is rational to say 2+2 is equal to 4, saying it is equal to 4.5 is wrong, saying it is equal to 100 is also wrong, they are both equally wrong, neither make any sense. They are both equally irrational answers even if 100 is further away from the rational answer.
User avatar #70283 - alltimetens (05/31/2014) [-]
Thats... debatable to say the least. But assuming you're right:

1.) That paradigm/ideology is not applicable to controversial topics such as the existence of God.

2.) It may be true in math, but certain beliefs, for instance, are more irrational than others.

For example:

It is more irrational to say that there are flying subatomic monkies than, say, to imply that Darwin's Theory of Evolution is incorrect.

There can be two wrongs. But whichever wrong has the greater probability of being right is the least irrational of the pair.
#70286 - vanityfair (05/31/2014) [-]
I don't see why we cannot treat this as a mathematical problem? There are a finite amount of inputs and there must be an output in the form of a world-view or ideology that makes the most sense. Just because there's controversey around a problem it does not mean that there is not a rational answer, happens all the time in physics and maths.

It is irrational to believe in flying subatomic monkeys, however it is rational to believe in Darwinian Evolution. These are two absolutes in the form of an irrational and a rational, however if you presented two irrationals such as flying subatomic monkeys and floating planet sized space bears, one is not more or less irrational than the other. They are simply both irrational.
User avatar #70290 - alltimetens (05/31/2014) [-]
1.) God being controversial doesn't make it non-corellated with mathematics; it is the fact that viewing from a mathematical perspective completely oversimplifies the matter and therefore ignores many key factors that substantiate the existence of a God.

2.) No except it is rational to believe that there aren't subatomic monkies. That's the point you missed.

There is no evidence to support the notion that such monkies exist just as there is no evidence to support that Darwin's Theory of Evolution is incorrect.

Look at it like this:

The amount of evidence to prove that there are no subatomic monkies is equal to or even exceeds evidence for Darwin's Theory of Evolution.
#70293 - vanityfair (05/31/2014) [-]
I don't really see how it would oversimplify it? It's not that much of a complex issue due to our lack of information. Bertrand Russel started analytical philosophy which uses mathematics to solve philosophical problems, there is no reason it could not be applied to the existence of a God.

That final statement is irrational as a whole, there is no evidence for SM, and there is evidence for Darwinian Evolution. Thusly it is irrational to believe in SM, and it is also irrational to believe in Lamark's theory of evolution, despite it being closer to the truth.
User avatar #70295 - alltimetens (05/31/2014) [-]
1.) Actually, it is. But as I said, I won't get into it.

2.) You keep missing my point.


SM: Just as much proof that they don't exist as there is proof that Darwin's Theory of Evolution.

Lamarck's Theory: Is wrong, but has certain truths.

If you honestly can't see that some things are more rational/irrational than others, then I don't know what to say to you.
#70296 - vanityfair (05/31/2014) [-]
What I don't understand is that you agree that there is absolutism in mathematical rationalities and rationalities, and agree that problems can be considered mathematically, but believe there is there is no absolutism in these problems. You seem to miss a step here where you declare there is an intrinsic difference between what can be represented mathematically and what cannot.
User avatar #70297 - alltimetens (05/31/2014) [-]
That's what I've been trying to say!

You can make mathematical models, but that doesn't mean that they are true/are applicable to what is actually happening.
#70298 - vanityfair (05/31/2014) [-]
Oh, well sorry for misunderstanding that.

And I vehemently disagree with that, the whole field of analytical philosophy shows that philosophical proofs can be obtained from anything from the ground up, using mathematics. I don't see why anything would be so special as to be exempt from this, as to say beyond logic itself, unless you can find something that is truly beyond all logic and the laws of the universe and comprehension itself, then I'll have to disagree with you there.
User avatar #70299 - alltimetens (05/31/2014) [-]
I'm recalling statistics.

Like I said, there is a 50% mathematical probability that I have an apple in my hand because you have the same amount of evidence that I do/do not have an apple in my hand.

HOWEVER, just because, mathematically speaking, I am 50% holding an apple, that doesn't mean that there are other factors that are not accomodated when you use a mathematical model to substantiate a philosophical/statistical claim.

Mathematics doesn't accomodate to questions/reasoning such as "Why would I need an apple in my hand to begin with?"
#70300 - vanityfair (05/31/2014) [-]
Why you would/would not need an apple is entirely irrelevant to this. Here you can simply look at the evidence on whether you do or do not have it, whether you need it or not is entirely irrelevant. A need for something is not physical or tangible, and as such has no place in deciding whether or not something physical or tangible exists, and as such can be ignored.
User avatar #70301 - alltimetens (05/31/2014) [-]
--

I'm giving you an
example_

An example on why you're wrong.
#70302 - vanityfair (05/31/2014) [-]
And that example is not valid, you can't say something that is irrelevant to the problem cannot be represented mathematically, as it is irrelevant. That that is tangible and physical can be represented mathematically. Only tangible and physical things affect the existence of things. Therefore the existence of things can be determined via mathematics. The need for something has nothing to do with it's existence, doesn't matter how much someone may need God in their time of need, or how much they want it, it has absolutely no impact on God's existence.
User avatar #70304 - alltimetens (05/31/2014) [-]
You're still wrong.

Whether or not I need God does not affect how real that God is.

Mathematical models are rarely accurate representations.

Please stop arguing with me. You lost.
#70305 - vanityfair (05/31/2014) [-]
That's exactly what I said, "Whether or not I need God does not affect how real that God is.", you were saying things contrary to that.

Mathematical models can be perfectly accurate as long as enough time and information is put into them. Mathematics is applied logic, saying things cannot be represented mathematically is by definition illogical.

Show me how I've lost.
User avatar #70306 - alltimetens (05/31/2014) [-]
Where have I said that belief in God affects a mathematical constant?
#70271 - Is it arrogant to, with absolute certainty, deny the existence…  [+] (68 new replies) 05/31/2014 on Religion Board 0
User avatar #70334 - kanadetenshi (05/31/2014) [-]
I don't deny with absolute certainty the existence of god, almost nobody does. What we want is prove that he exists.
User avatar #70326 - syrianassassin (05/31/2014) [-]
can you make your question simple?
User avatar #70313 - ribocoon (05/31/2014) [-]
I don't think that there is enough evidence either way for a being to exist in a dimension higher than our own.
But I have a difficult time believing that such a hypothetical being is responsible for our well being, is endowed with infinite knowledge, power, and benevolence, yet still allows easily preventable atrocities to occur.
User avatar #70314 - alltimetens (05/31/2014) [-]
You can't use the "why doesn't God help us" argument to support your disbelief.
User avatar #70315 - ribocoon (05/31/2014) [-]
why not?
I don't object to the possibility of an ambivalent god.
I just make the subjective observation that the world is far too corrupted for a perfect being to be directly responsible for it's state of being
It may help to know that I don't believe in free will
User avatar #70316 - alltimetens (05/31/2014) [-]
Why don't you believe in free will?
User avatar #70317 - ribocoon (05/31/2014) [-]
Read this please
I feel as if it quickly sums up the argument
webspace.ship.edu/cgboer/freewill.html
User avatar #70318 - alltimetens (05/31/2014) [-]
I really don't feel like reading all of that so please give me the basic principles.
User avatar #70319 - ribocoon (05/31/2014) [-]
You can just read the first portion
I don't agree with the soft determinism mentioned later.
#70307 - vanityfair (05/31/2014) [-]
"Why would I need an apple in my hand to begin with?"

This is a drawn parallel.
User avatar #70309 - alltimetens (05/31/2014) [-]
That hasn't anything to do with what I said.

I. Am. Saying. That. The. Reason. Why. Using. Math. As. A. Source. Of. Reasoning. In. This. Particular. Case. Is. That. Math. Does. Not. Accomodate. Certain. 3rd. Party. Factors.


It's a one-sided perception.
#70310 - vanityfair (05/31/2014) [-]
Give me a third party factor that could not be accommodated then regarding the existence of God.
User avatar #70311 - alltimetens (05/31/2014) [-]
The reasoning behind a god in the first place!

The universe/multiverse/existence isn't infinite. Therefore, that universe/multiverse/existence would need something that is infinite to create it!

That means that something that is eternal has to have created all in existence. And because that thing created everything, then it would know everything that there is to know!

Try putting that in a mathematical equation.
User avatar #70336 - kanadetenshi (05/31/2014) [-]
I already refuted that oversimplistic argument. Your argument implies a linear timeline of cause and effect, time doesn't work that way.
User avatar #70374 - alltimetens (05/31/2014) [-]
I already proved that your counterargument has just enough evidence as my initial argument.

You have refuted nothing.
User avatar #70405 - kanadetenshi (05/31/2014) [-]
I don't want to prove it wrong at all, i never said that. I asked for evidence, that's not trying to prove anything wrong.
User avatar #70408 - alltimetens (05/31/2014) [-]
So what exactly are you doing by throwing out all of these counterclaims that are aimed at disproving my argument?
User avatar #70410 - kanadetenshi (05/31/2014) [-]
You asked for an alternative explanation with evidence so i gave you one. What you're doing is side-stepping the fact that you failed to provide logically proof that god exists.
User avatar #70412 - alltimetens (05/31/2014) [-]
Your alternatives do not have any definite solutions.
User avatar #70413 - kanadetenshi (05/31/2014) [-]
The alternatives provide evidence that god isn't needed for a universe to come into existence.
User avatar #70431 - alltimetens (05/31/2014) [-]
Actually, the alternatives only indicate that the universe can be indirectly created by the creator.

Meaning, the apparatus such as virtual particles themselves are not definite.
User avatar #70404 - kanadetenshi (05/31/2014) [-]
You completely missed the point, what i'm talking about is that you're adding a whole bunch of useless "what ifs" at a substantiated fact in science that doesn't need anything added. Just like basic biology doesn't need fairies added.

What you're doing is the god of the gaps argument, basically even if i showed you an origin before this you're going to ask for another origin and then i give another one and you ask for another one and we're going on forever, that's not how science works that's special pleading.

Principles such as "before and "after" in a phenomena that violated time makes no sense, there's no logical reason to apply a possible origin before empty space because empty space violates time, it's like asking that there must be something that is south of the south-pole, it's stupid.
User avatar #70407 - alltimetens (05/31/2014) [-]
These "what ifs" aren't useless at all. That means that no matter what evidence you give me, you cannot prove the me that the Law of Causality is violated.

If we go on an endless chain of "what ifs" then that means that energy/matter is recycled throughout.
User avatar #70409 - kanadetenshi (05/31/2014) [-]
That doesn't mean that causality isn't violated you dumbfuck, that just means that you're special pleading. Like i said there is no such thing as before and after in empty space.
User avatar #70375 - kanadetenshi (05/31/2014) [-]
No it didn't you merely said that we don't know if it comes from ex nihilo which is an irrelevant statement because i was merely talking about cause and effect which quantum mechanics violates.
User avatar #70377 - alltimetens (05/31/2014) [-]
Oh, so when I make unsubstantiated arguments it's a sin but when you do the same your argument is plausible? That's not how it works, my friend.
User avatar #70379 - kanadetenshi (05/31/2014) [-]
Except quantum mechanics isn't unsubstantiated.
User avatar #70382 - alltimetens (05/31/2014) [-]
I'm not saying quantum mechanics isn't substantiated; I'm saying that the small portion of quantum mechanics that you used as the basis of your argument is contradictory.

Why is it contradictory?

Because you criticize my arguments for believing in something with no evidence, yet your ideologies are based off of just as much evidence.
User avatar #70384 - kanadetenshi (05/31/2014) [-]
Except i have provided evidence of the fact that virtual particles pop in and out of existence from zero energy fields. Just because you're to stupid to understand this doesn't mean it doesn't have evidence. What you're trying to do is shift the burden of proof because you know you have no arguments for your irrational god position.
User avatar #70385 - alltimetens (05/31/2014) [-]
I already refuted your zero energy fields argument.

And of course I'm going to have to demand evidence from my adversary who has criticized my lack thereof.
User avatar #70389 - kanadetenshi (05/31/2014) [-]
And i'm merely showing you facts, i don't have to provide any alternative explanations because i'm not the one making the claim that god doesn't exist, you are the one claiming god does exist and you have failed to give one logical argument or evidence for it's existence.
User avatar #70390 - alltimetens (05/31/2014) [-]
If you're going to counter my claim, then you have to provide evidence. It doesn't matter who is making the claim, it matters who has provided the best evidence.


User avatar #70393 - kanadetenshi (05/31/2014) [-]
I don't even have to counter your claim because you haven't given any evidence of your claim in the first place.
User avatar #70395 - alltimetens (05/31/2014) [-]
Yet I still manage to counter every single "substantiated" counter you threw at me.

You still contradicted yourself because you criticize me for not having evidence but you don't have any evidence of your own. We are essentially leading an argument that has absolutely no purpose because we don't have enough knowledge on either side.
User avatar #70397 - kanadetenshi (05/31/2014) [-]
No you didn't, you're simply showing how ignorant you are regarding the field of physics.
User avatar #70399 - alltimetens (05/31/2014) [-]
Actually, I have, which proves that you have no argumentative skill/background.

If I'm going to make an unsubstantiated claim, then you better give me a substantiated counter that proves me wrong.

For example, I can say that Lamarck's Theory of Evolution is correct, but in order to counter that, you have to say that Darwin's Theory is correct and then provide me with evidence as a way to prove me wrong.
User avatar #70402 - kanadetenshi (05/31/2014) [-]
Uhm no that's not how it works at all.

I can say that Lamarck's theory of evolution is correct, but someone else will ask for evidence that it's correct. They don't have to provide an alternative explanation because they aren't making any claims, they're asking for evidence.
User avatar #70403 - alltimetens (05/31/2014) [-]
But isn't applicable to this argument.

I'm giving a proposition.

You want to prove it wrong.

In order to prove it wrong, you have to provide evidence that it is wrong, otherwise I am not convinced.
User avatar #70388 - kanadetenshi (05/31/2014) [-]
No you didn't, you only showed your poor understanding of physics. You claim that zero energy universes don't explain whether or not they come from nothing while a zero energy universe IS NOTHING BY DEFINITION and particles come from this state hence violating causality. It's very likely that empty space is a default position that didn't came from anything because it's NOTHING.

I already showed you evidence that time and causality can be violated even without quantum mechanics, or are you going to deny the very principles of relativity aswell?
User avatar #70391 - alltimetens (05/31/2014) [-]
Nothing coming from nothing doesn't violate causality.
User avatar #70392 - kanadetenshi (05/31/2014) [-]
But something coming from a zero energy field does, and black holes do, and particle-wave duality does, and even time delay does.
User avatar #70394 - alltimetens (05/31/2014) [-]
You still have not provided sufficient evidence that they have originated there to begin with.

Virtual particles could have originated from zero energy universes, but what proof do you bring that states that they didn't come from another source?
User avatar #70396 - kanadetenshi (05/31/2014) [-]
Seriously the evidence is everywhere, physcists have done literally experiments that confirm that they come from empty space, read a book, read a journal, read anything based on physics and you'll find evidence, it's not rocket science to look it up.
www.newscientist.com/article/dn16095-its-confirmed-matter-is-merely-vacuum-fluctuations.html#.U4osKfl_vD8
books.google.nl/books?id=DyhyFSL7bNUC&pg=PP1&dq=intitle:Probing+intitle:the+intitle:Quantum+intitle:Vacuum&hl=nl#v=onepage&q&f=false
User avatar #70398 - alltimetens (05/31/2014) [-]
I know that they come from empty space.

But that does not prove that empty space is their definite origin.
User avatar #70400 - kanadetenshi (05/31/2014) [-]
That's akin to saying that just because poop comes out of your anus that doesn't mean that that's proof that me eating the food was the definite origin. It could've been that a demon planted that food inside me and gave us the illusion that we ate the food.

This is why we have principles such as occam's razor where the hypothesis with the fewest assumptions is the preferred one.
User avatar #70401 - alltimetens (05/31/2014) [-]
Exactly. Poop began as food, and food began as something else.

Saying that virtual particles have one definite origin is one-sided and ignorant.
#70289 - Womens Study Major (05/31/2014) [-]
yes, but it is just as arrogant to claim the existence of God
User avatar #70273 - aczzoh (05/31/2014) [-]
Claiming to know anything with absolute certainty is extremely arrogant. Which is why me, and most other atheists, don't do it.
#70272 - vanityfair (05/31/2014) [-]
It's irrational to say there is definitely no God, however it is irrational to believe there is a God.
User avatar #70274 - alltimetens (05/31/2014) [-]
Why is it irrational to believe in a God?

And which do you think is more irrational?
#70275 - vanityfair (05/31/2014) [-]
It has no evidence, and raises far more large questions than it answers.

I don't think things come in degrees of irrationality, I think it's more absolute than that. Something is either rational, or irrational, simple as that.
User avatar #70276 - alltimetens (05/31/2014) [-]
1.) I disagree but I won't get into that.

2.) I also disagree.

There are some things more irrational than others.
#70279 - vanityfair (05/31/2014) [-]
How so? Saying something is semi irrational, or that something is more or less irrational than something else couldn't make sense. It is rational to say 2+2 is equal to 4, saying it is equal to 4.5 is wrong, saying it is equal to 100 is also wrong, they are both equally wrong, neither make any sense. They are both equally irrational answers even if 100 is further away from the rational answer.
User avatar #70283 - alltimetens (05/31/2014) [-]
Thats... debatable to say the least. But assuming you're right:

1.) That paradigm/ideology is not applicable to controversial topics such as the existence of God.

2.) It may be true in math, but certain beliefs, for instance, are more irrational than others.

For example:

It is more irrational to say that there are flying subatomic monkies than, say, to imply that Darwin's Theory of Evolution is incorrect.

There can be two wrongs. But whichever wrong has the greater probability of being right is the least irrational of the pair.
#70286 - vanityfair (05/31/2014) [-]
I don't see why we cannot treat this as a mathematical problem? There are a finite amount of inputs and there must be an output in the form of a world-view or ideology that makes the most sense. Just because there's controversey around a problem it does not mean that there is not a rational answer, happens all the time in physics and maths.

It is irrational to believe in flying subatomic monkeys, however it is rational to believe in Darwinian Evolution. These are two absolutes in the form of an irrational and a rational, however if you presented two irrationals such as flying subatomic monkeys and floating planet sized space bears, one is not more or less irrational than the other. They are simply both irrational.
User avatar #70290 - alltimetens (05/31/2014) [-]
1.) God being controversial doesn't make it non-corellated with mathematics; it is the fact that viewing from a mathematical perspective completely oversimplifies the matter and therefore ignores many key factors that substantiate the existence of a God.

2.) No except it is rational to believe that there aren't subatomic monkies. That's the point you missed.

There is no evidence to support the notion that such monkies exist just as there is no evidence to support that Darwin's Theory of Evolution is incorrect.

Look at it like this:

The amount of evidence to prove that there are no subatomic monkies is equal to or even exceeds evidence for Darwin's Theory of Evolution.
#70293 - vanityfair (05/31/2014) [-]
I don't really see how it would oversimplify it? It's not that much of a complex issue due to our lack of information. Bertrand Russel started analytical philosophy which uses mathematics to solve philosophical problems, there is no reason it could not be applied to the existence of a God.

That final statement is irrational as a whole, there is no evidence for SM, and there is evidence for Darwinian Evolution. Thusly it is irrational to believe in SM, and it is also irrational to believe in Lamark's theory of evolution, despite it being closer to the truth.
User avatar #70295 - alltimetens (05/31/2014) [-]
1.) Actually, it is. But as I said, I won't get into it.

2.) You keep missing my point.


SM: Just as much proof that they don't exist as there is proof that Darwin's Theory of Evolution.

Lamarck's Theory: Is wrong, but has certain truths.

If you honestly can't see that some things are more rational/irrational than others, then I don't know what to say to you.
#70296 - vanityfair (05/31/2014) [-]
What I don't understand is that you agree that there is absolutism in mathematical rationalities and rationalities, and agree that problems can be considered mathematically, but believe there is there is no absolutism in these problems. You seem to miss a step here where you declare there is an intrinsic difference between what can be represented mathematically and what cannot.
User avatar #70297 - alltimetens (05/31/2014) [-]
That's what I've been trying to say!

You can make mathematical models, but that doesn't mean that they are true/are applicable to what is actually happening.
#70298 - vanityfair (05/31/2014) [-]
Oh, well sorry for misunderstanding that.

And I vehemently disagree with that, the whole field of analytical philosophy shows that philosophical proofs can be obtained from anything from the ground up, using mathematics. I don't see why anything would be so special as to be exempt from this, as to say beyond logic itself, unless you can find something that is truly beyond all logic and the laws of the universe and comprehension itself, then I'll have to disagree with you there.
User avatar #70299 - alltimetens (05/31/2014) [-]
I'm recalling statistics.

Like I said, there is a 50% mathematical probability that I have an apple in my hand because you have the same amount of evidence that I do/do not have an apple in my hand.

HOWEVER, just because, mathematically speaking, I am 50% holding an apple, that doesn't mean that there are other factors that are not accomodated when you use a mathematical model to substantiate a philosophical/statistical claim.

Mathematics doesn't accomodate to questions/reasoning such as "Why would I need an apple in my hand to begin with?"
#70300 - vanityfair (05/31/2014) [-]
Why you would/would not need an apple is entirely irrelevant to this. Here you can simply look at the evidence on whether you do or do not have it, whether you need it or not is entirely irrelevant. A need for something is not physical or tangible, and as such has no place in deciding whether or not something physical or tangible exists, and as such can be ignored.
User avatar #70301 - alltimetens (05/31/2014) [-]
--

I'm giving you an
example_

An example on why you're wrong.
#70302 - vanityfair (05/31/2014) [-]
And that example is not valid, you can't say something that is irrelevant to the problem cannot be represented mathematically, as it is irrelevant. That that is tangible and physical can be represented mathematically. Only tangible and physical things affect the existence of things. Therefore the existence of things can be determined via mathematics. The need for something has nothing to do with it's existence, doesn't matter how much someone may need God in their time of need, or how much they want it, it has absolutely no impact on God's existence.
User avatar #70304 - alltimetens (05/31/2014) [-]
You're still wrong.

Whether or not I need God does not affect how real that God is.

Mathematical models are rarely accurate representations.

Please stop arguing with me. You lost.
#70305 - vanityfair (05/31/2014) [-]
That's exactly what I said, "Whether or not I need God does not affect how real that God is.", you were saying things contrary to that.

Mathematical models can be perfectly accurate as long as enough time and information is put into them. Mathematics is applied logic, saying things cannot be represented mathematically is by definition illogical.

Show me how I've lost.
User avatar #70306 - alltimetens (05/31/2014) [-]
Where have I said that belief in God affects a mathematical constant?
#70270 - "reading this and waiting for an amazing response, alltim… 05/31/2014 on Religion Board 0
#70269 - There is no evidence that these particles pop out of existence… 05/31/2014 on Religion Board 0
#70268 - I just did. Christianity is full of loopholes. Please look the… 05/31/2014 on Religion Board 0
Show:
Sort by:
Order:

items

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

Comments(138):

[ 138 comments ]

Show All Replies Show Shortcuts
Per page:
Order:
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#162 - syrianassassin (05/31/2014) [-]
because you are new in the religion board, you must know what your enemy will do to your opinions

this is my first post in the religion board i talked with ethics and total respect and look what happened

www.funnyjunk.com/religion/54159#54159


now i am a troll who troll atheist trolls using their own logic and piss them off using their own life system and belief

new atheism =/= atheism

new atheism mean you shall be a total asshole against religion no matter how logical the answer is given

the board is full of heretics and you shall take care
#159 - syrianassassin (05/31/2014) [-]
i see you are a christian who came for some question in the religion board, and all you saw is some faggots trolling and ************
User avatar #160 to #159 - alltimetens (05/31/2014) [-]
I'm not really a Christian. I'm more of an agnostic.
User avatar #161 to #160 - syrianassassin (05/31/2014) [-]
and when you wanted answer, all you found is some new atheism bitches and cock sucking tranny faggots trolling you with nonsense
right?
#149 - Womens Study Major (04/08/2014) [-]
hey your the guy from youtube
i like your videos dude
User avatar #154 to #149 - tranquilizer ONLINE (04/20/2014) [-]
He's not them
User avatar #155 to #154 - badmotorfinger ONLINE (05/02/2014) [-]
get the euthanization needle. they're becoming aware.
User avatar #156 to #155 - tranquilizer ONLINE (05/02/2014) [-]
Wait
Where did you come from
The future?
#157 to #156 - nickypickle ONLINE (05/23/2014) [-]
I dunno if all this charade about being the one on youtube or not is all part of a 'sekretu klub' thing but its really getting to the point where someone needs some answers

yes? no? why is this such an issue I dont understand
User avatar #158 to #157 - tranquilizer ONLINE (05/23/2014) [-]
Where do you people keep coming from I'm scared ;_;
#143 - zafara ONLINE (04/07/2014) [-]
And with the mildly aroused Karasu picture, I am finished. Sorry for the spamish stuff, but you did ask me to and they do make good reaction images.
User avatar #145 to #143 - alltimetens (04/07/2014) [-]
No problem, man.

I appreciate all these reaction pics. Fukken savin' all of em'. I'm glad there are others here who have enjoyed the same anime as I.
User avatar #146 to #145 - zafara ONLINE (04/07/2014) [-]
Might be an odd thing to say, but you might want to join Tumblr. A lot of us are actually males who enjoy certain fandoms and have deep discussions about them, especially with Yu Yu Hakusho.

Might I suggest Kill La Kill or HunterXHunter? The latter apparently takes place in the future of Yu Yu Hakusho. Of course, Inuyasha is said to take place in the past, with Kikyo being Raizen's original daughter.
User avatar #147 to #146 - alltimetens (04/07/2014) [-]
Damn... I better get watching.
User avatar #148 to #147 - zafara ONLINE (04/07/2014) [-]
Go for Inuyasha first. I feel like Yu Yu Hakusho took a lot from that show. "Ooohhh we're losing viewers during the Dark Tournament, better show them Kurama's true form!" Fricken love child of Sesshomaru and Inuyasha (Which given Sesshomaru's mother isn't entirely out of the question even though they are a different species). Also, character types for both Toguro brothers, Bui, Karasu, and others were in that show.
#142 - zafara ONLINE (04/07/2014) [-]
Sometimes I edit a strikethrough over the 'not' to make a joke.
#141 - zafara ONLINE (04/07/2014) [-]
#140 - zafara ONLINE (04/07/2014) [-]
Comment Picture
#139 - zafara ONLINE (04/07/2014) [-]
This is my wallpaper and icon
#138 - zafara ONLINE (04/07/2014) [-]
This too.
This too.
#137 - zafara ONLINE (04/07/2014) [-]
Comment Picture
#136 - zafara ONLINE (04/07/2014) [-]
By the way, there is a user named Toguro here, but they aren't named after this Toguro.
By the way, there is a user named Toguro here, but they aren't named after this Toguro.
#150 to #136 - toguro ONLINE (04/17/2014) [-]
You like telling everyone that don'tcha?
User avatar #151 to #150 - zafara ONLINE (04/17/2014) [-]
Well, we were talking about Toguro anyway. You usually pop up whenever Toguro is mentioned, so I wanted to let him know that you would probably show up. I also wanted to warn him that you don't really watch the show and named yourself Toguro after something else so that they didn't ask you questions about Yu Yu Hakusho you don't know.

Basically, I wanted to save some time by warning him that while you have the name, you don't know the show.

You know what I'm trying to say?
#152 to #151 - toguro ONLINE (04/17/2014) [-]
Yeah I understood the 4th time you did it - I dont mind really
User avatar #153 to #152 - zafara ONLINE (04/17/2014) [-]
I didn't think I was mentioning you that much. Sorry.
#135 - zafara ONLINE (04/07/2014) [-]
This works as a good, I am mildly confused and/or disturbed by what I see
#133 - zafara ONLINE (04/07/2014) [-]
#132 - zafara ONLINE (04/07/2014) [-]
Comment Picture
#131 - zafara ONLINE (04/07/2014) [-]
#130 - zafara ONLINE (04/07/2014) [-]
Comment Picture
#129 - zafara ONLINE (04/07/2014) [-]
Remember this scene?
Remember this scene?
User avatar #134 to #129 - alltimetens (04/07/2014) [-]
this **** was creepy
User avatar #144 to #134 - zafara ONLINE (04/07/2014) [-]
Yep. You know what's even more creepy? Elder Toguro decapitated himself into a small aquarium and swam around in there as a head for a while without anyone really noticing.
#128 - zafara ONLINE (04/07/2014) [-]
When someone doesn't get the joke and gets offended so you have to explain it.
#127 - zafara ONLINE (04/07/2014) [-]
Comment Picture
#126 - zafara ONLINE (04/07/2014) [-]
[ 138 comments ]
Leave a comment
 Friends (0)