Upload
Login or register

auryn

Last status update:
-
Gender: male
Age: 26
Date Signed Up:3/17/2012
Last Login:7/26/2016
Location:The Netherlands
FunnyJunk Career Stats
Comment Ranking:#538
Highest Content Rank:#14558
Highest Comment Rank:#46
Content Thumbs: 96 total,  176 ,  80
Comment Thumbs: 61496 total,  71941 ,  10445
Content Level Progress: 80% (4/5)
Level 8 Content: New Here → Level 9 Content: New Here
Comment Level Progress: 12.9% (129/1000)
Level 348 Comments: Sold Soul → Level 349 Comments: Sold Soul
Subscribers:1
Content Views:13087
Times Content Favorited:14 times
Total Comments Made:10330
FJ Points:47686

latest user's comments

#404 - You might want to elaborate or rephrase that because I don't r…  [+] (5 new replies) 09/25/2015 on shut up 0
User avatar
#405 - madcoww (09/25/2015) [-]
Your original statement seems to suggest that science and religion can live in harmony. I disagree. Perhaps you believe that a person can hold science as supreme in all matters dealing with reality yet be religion in all matters of the metaphysical, but I don't believe this can create any desirable results. When a person professes arbitrary metaphysical assumptions beyond the existence of reality, they open the door to other people doing the same. "I believe in Yahweh, and he wants me to eat bread and wine every Sunday." This notion is seemingly harmless on the surface, but it has dire implications that manifest in time. If there is a God who brings justice in the afterlife, there is little need to administer it in this world. If there is a God who rewards people based on their suffering, there is little need to make this world better. When the standard isn't objective results in reality, then the standard can be anything.
#406 - auryn (09/25/2015) [-]
Thanks.

But you seem to have an awfully restricted and superficial view on religion related metaphysical notions.

There are many possibilities out there that don't oppose scientific knowledge or rational thought.
User avatar
#407 - madcoww (09/25/2015) [-]
Yes, but they certainly don't compliment it nor do they serve any useful purpose whatever. At best they are useless appendages and at worse they are cancerous cells.
#408 - auryn (09/26/2015) [-]
Complement, not compliment.

And you do realize that the entire essence of religious metaphysics is all about the purpose and aim of life, the meaning of existence.
So to say "At best they are useless appendages" is a contradiction by definition, because if it were true it could mean everything and be most useful.
User avatar
#411 - madcoww (09/26/2015) [-]
I don't believe it has anything to do with the purpose of life. Quite the contrary, it has everything to do with the nullification of life, the denial of life. When a person sets their sights on the hereafter, they cheapen the here and now: reality. What's more, there is no objective way to tell which religion should have more authority, and therefore it's a theological free-for-all. And not all of those religions want to play nice.
#402 - They're not necessarily as much opposing as they can be comple…  [+] (7 new replies) 09/25/2015 on shut up 0
User avatar
#403 - madcoww (09/25/2015) [-]
Provided those metaphysical views do not shape views on reality and influence their actions, which they inevitably do. Even if 5 people don't act upon their metaphysical views they give vindication to the 1 person who does.
#404 - auryn (09/25/2015) [-]
You might want to elaborate or rephrase that because I don't really know what you're trying to say or how that ties in to what I said.
User avatar
#405 - madcoww (09/25/2015) [-]
Your original statement seems to suggest that science and religion can live in harmony. I disagree. Perhaps you believe that a person can hold science as supreme in all matters dealing with reality yet be religion in all matters of the metaphysical, but I don't believe this can create any desirable results. When a person professes arbitrary metaphysical assumptions beyond the existence of reality, they open the door to other people doing the same. "I believe in Yahweh, and he wants me to eat bread and wine every Sunday." This notion is seemingly harmless on the surface, but it has dire implications that manifest in time. If there is a God who brings justice in the afterlife, there is little need to administer it in this world. If there is a God who rewards people based on their suffering, there is little need to make this world better. When the standard isn't objective results in reality, then the standard can be anything.
#406 - auryn (09/25/2015) [-]
Thanks.

But you seem to have an awfully restricted and superficial view on religion related metaphysical notions.

There are many possibilities out there that don't oppose scientific knowledge or rational thought.
User avatar
#407 - madcoww (09/25/2015) [-]
Yes, but they certainly don't compliment it nor do they serve any useful purpose whatever. At best they are useless appendages and at worse they are cancerous cells.
#408 - auryn (09/26/2015) [-]
Complement, not compliment.

And you do realize that the entire essence of religious metaphysics is all about the purpose and aim of life, the meaning of existence.
So to say "At best they are useless appendages" is a contradiction by definition, because if it were true it could mean everything and be most useful.
User avatar
#411 - madcoww (09/26/2015) [-]
I don't believe it has anything to do with the purpose of life. Quite the contrary, it has everything to do with the nullification of life, the denial of life. When a person sets their sights on the hereafter, they cheapen the here and now: reality. What's more, there is no objective way to tell which religion should have more authority, and therefore it's a theological free-for-all. And not all of those religions want to play nice.
#14 - Science has nothing to do with religion vs atheism.  [+] (21 new replies) 09/25/2015 on shut up +41
#53 - madcoww (09/25/2015) [-]
**madcoww used "*roll picture*"**
**madcoww rolled image**I thought at the root of "science" is the scientific method with it's constant question and reliance on reality and at the root of religion is faith with it's blind acceptance and reoccupation with the metaphysical, which lies outside observable reality. These two concepts are fundamentally opposed to each other.
#402 - auryn (09/25/2015) [-]
They're not necessarily as much opposing as they can be complementary.

There are many different metaphysical views possible with the frameworks of the various religions that don't need to oppose science in any way.
User avatar
#403 - madcoww (09/25/2015) [-]
Provided those metaphysical views do not shape views on reality and influence their actions, which they inevitably do. Even if 5 people don't act upon their metaphysical views they give vindication to the 1 person who does.
#404 - auryn (09/25/2015) [-]
You might want to elaborate or rephrase that because I don't really know what you're trying to say or how that ties in to what I said.
User avatar
#405 - madcoww (09/25/2015) [-]
Your original statement seems to suggest that science and religion can live in harmony. I disagree. Perhaps you believe that a person can hold science as supreme in all matters dealing with reality yet be religion in all matters of the metaphysical, but I don't believe this can create any desirable results. When a person professes arbitrary metaphysical assumptions beyond the existence of reality, they open the door to other people doing the same. "I believe in Yahweh, and he wants me to eat bread and wine every Sunday." This notion is seemingly harmless on the surface, but it has dire implications that manifest in time. If there is a God who brings justice in the afterlife, there is little need to administer it in this world. If there is a God who rewards people based on their suffering, there is little need to make this world better. When the standard isn't objective results in reality, then the standard can be anything.
#406 - auryn (09/25/2015) [-]
Thanks.

But you seem to have an awfully restricted and superficial view on religion related metaphysical notions.

There are many possibilities out there that don't oppose scientific knowledge or rational thought.
User avatar
#407 - madcoww (09/25/2015) [-]
Yes, but they certainly don't compliment it nor do they serve any useful purpose whatever. At best they are useless appendages and at worse they are cancerous cells.
#408 - auryn (09/26/2015) [-]
Complement, not compliment.

And you do realize that the entire essence of religious metaphysics is all about the purpose and aim of life, the meaning of existence.
So to say "At best they are useless appendages" is a contradiction by definition, because if it were true it could mean everything and be most useful.
User avatar
#411 - madcoww (09/26/2015) [-]
I don't believe it has anything to do with the purpose of life. Quite the contrary, it has everything to do with the nullification of life, the denial of life. When a person sets their sights on the hereafter, they cheapen the here and now: reality. What's more, there is no objective way to tell which religion should have more authority, and therefore it's a theological free-for-all. And not all of those religions want to play nice.
#257 - anon (09/25/2015) [-]
So all those scientists who are religious aren't real scientists?
User avatar
#400 - madcoww (09/25/2015) [-]
They are, but they are hypocrites at a very fundamental level.
User avatar
#15 - captainprincess (09/25/2015) [-]
except when it comes to beliefs of origin
User avatar
#19 - sketchysketchist (09/25/2015) [-]
That's the only time.
But I think most logical religious people believe that that's how our universe was created but at some point all this cool religious stories started happening, and god probably was involved in the big bang(AKA your mum).
User avatar
#28 - grumpythefirst (09/25/2015) [-]
Yet they thank God when they are cured by science.
User avatar
#42 - sketchysketchist (09/25/2015) [-]
At this point, that's more of a Saying than the person genuinely believing that god did anything to save their ass.
They only pull the, "Well god helped you gain the knowledge to use those equipment he helped others make blah blah blah" because some whiny bitch goes on about how, "God isn't real. Ur stoopid. Atheist: 1 Some Random Person:0".

I mean, Jesus Christ can't people infer what is meant when people say certain things?
User avatar
#71 - grumpythefirst (09/25/2015) [-]
Well, being atheist, even I say "Oh my god" etc, as like you said it is just out of habit/is a saying

I was more saying the people that genuinely believe god is the sole purpose of their well-being.
User avatar
#94 - sketchysketchist (09/25/2015) [-]
Surprisingly, there's only a few people who do that, mostly because these people either turn out to be crazy or end up getting themselves killed because they think god's going to stop that 8-wheel semi in time just because they want to cross the middle of the street sooner.

Also, less religious people can be like this too. They might not put their life in the hands of god, but they put it in the hands of some higher power. I.E: I never get a raise because my boss is a dick. My teacher is unable to understand that students have lives outside of school. My car ran out of gas because it ate it up too fast. I'm fat because Mcdonald's makes addictive food. Etc.
Of course, less religious people tend to credit themselves for their successes while religious folk thank god.
That's not to say religious people are less arrogant. They also have the habit of committing evil deeds like shoplifting, or taking money someone in front of them dropped, or anything below murder, then believe god's on their side because he let them get away, therefore they're special and can do no wrong.

When you really think about it, it's just dicks who ruin things for people and this is old news.
User avatar
#20 - captainprincess (09/25/2015) [-]
most logical religious people, sure
But based on what I've seen, personally, logical and religious don't all that often cross paths
User avatar
#21 - sketchysketchist (09/25/2015) [-]
There are religious scientists out there dude.
As their are scientifically minded religious people out there.

The crazy thing about life is that the stupider and louder people are usually the only ones we notice, even though they're the minority most of the time.
User avatar
#22 - captainprincess (09/25/2015) [-]
eh
I hear that claim of the vocal minority and it's starting to sound really weak, mostly because of how often it seems to be necessary to insist

Like it's imsspobile that the loud idiots could be the vast majority
no that could never happen
#44 - sketchysketchist (09/25/2015) [-]
Okay, my mistake.
I shouldn't of tooken that bait.
#69 - Picture  [+] (1 new reply) 09/24/2015 on bitch gets rekt +1
User avatar
#92 - scorpidea (09/25/2015) [-]
blocked by my antivirus....
#89 - Picture 09/24/2015 on I'm guilty of this 0
#11 - The rate of absorbtion through skin versus oral ingestion is s… 09/23/2015 on 40 hits +1
#7 - "And let's say because they're kids, maybe their thresho…  [+] (1 new reply) 09/23/2015 on 40 hits +6
User avatar
#9 - jakotad (09/23/2015) [-]
Apologies, I did not see that there.
#5 - Judging from the the zoomed out view and angle you see of the …  [+] (8 new replies) 09/23/2015 on 40 hits +23
#29 - Monroc (09/24/2015) [-]
Time to drain the pool and give Mr. Wiggles the time of his life then.
User avatar
#28 - lolollo (09/24/2015) [-]
I was wondering about that myself, but then Ihewitated to consider it further when I remembered that Roger was an alien...and also animated...which begged the question that maybe I was meant to suspend a little belief for the appreciation of humour.
#21 - saxong (09/24/2015) [-]
I was actually wondering this myself when I saw it was only 40. Thanks for mathing for me so I don't have to!
User avatar
#10 - shadowkingdr (09/23/2015) [-]
XTC is one of the few drugs that can transmute through the skin extremely well, not to mention as he fell in next to the children the drug would be less dilute when it comes into contact with their skin than it would if it had mixed flly with the pool
#11 - auryn (09/23/2015) [-]
The rate of absorbtion through skin versus oral ingestion is still nowhere close.
User avatar
#6 - jakotad (09/23/2015) [-]
Also take into account that they are kids, its going to hit a little harder.
#7 - auryn (09/23/2015) [-]
"And let's say because they're kids, maybe their threshold dose would only be half of the average."

Didn't I already?
User avatar
#9 - jakotad (09/23/2015) [-]
Apologies, I did not see that there.
#27 - Picture 09/20/2015 on isded +10
#15 - The dick was the first thing I noticed. no homo 09/20/2015 on Immaturity test +1