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

hide menu

larknok    

Rank #1914 on Comments
no avatar Level 228 Comments: Mind Blower
Offline
Send mail to larknok Block larknok Invite larknok to be your friend
Last status update:
-
Personal Info
Date Signed Up:7/02/2011
Last Login:9/15/2014
Funnyjunk Career Stats
Content Ranking:#5675
Comment Ranking:#1914
Highest Content Rank:#5677
Highest Comment Rank:#1569
Content Thumbs: 127 total,  206 ,  79
Comment Thumbs: 3221 total,  3788 ,  567
Content Level Progress: 60% (3/5)
Level 8 Content: New Here → Level 9 Content: New Here
Comment Level Progress: 52% (52/100)
Level 228 Comments: Mind Blower → Level 229 Comments: Mind Blower
Subscribers:0
Content Views:19723
Times Content Favorited:4 times
Total Comments Made:760
FJ Points:2955

latest user's comments

#75 - Thumb me down if you need to, but I always appreciated how Mon…  [+] (5 new replies) 08/26/2014 on Life's a piece of shit 0
#117 - tinglyturtletaint (08/26/2014) [-]
>"smart enough to realize"
Get real bro, Life of Brian was not a subtle jab that you need to be clever to get, get over yourself.
It's clearly and bluntly a parody of Jesus's story that takes stabs at Christianity the whole way through. Just because something pretends it's being subtle, doesn't mean it actually is.
You're probably one of those people that watches Big Bang Theory and thinks he's smart because he gets the jokes.
#122 - larknok (08/26/2014) [-]
Freak out and throw names around if you need to, but I was simply drawing attention to a number of observations I've made. Perhaps one of them was a misinterpration, I don't know. Just calm your tits, jesus.

1) I'm friends with tons of religious folks.
2) Almost all of them like Monty Python.
3) Life of Brian is clearly anti-religious.

If I drew false conclusion from these premises, I am sorry.
User avatar #86 - privatepumpanickel (08/26/2014) [-]
"never pissed any religious folk off"
m8 have you even done your researchism
The Life of Brian defended by Monty Python's John Cleese and Michael Palin.COMPLETE DEBATE
#108 - larknok (08/26/2014) [-]
I didn't mean "anyone" anyone. I meant the majority of religious folks aren't in uproar about it, and would probably watch it without batting much of an eye.
User avatar #111 - privatepumpanickel (08/26/2014) [-]
Dude are you even listening. There was huge controversy over Life of Brian. It was a thing. A LOT of religious people got butthurt.
#53 - I'm actually pretty sure that "cis" and "trans&… 08/22/2014 on Dear SJW +1
#17 - My favorite character (as a character) is Asami. The…  [+] (1 new reply) 08/21/2014 on Avatar LOK Gifs +5
#21 - anonymous (08/21/2014) [-]
You know she's going to marry Bolin.
(pretty please, Bryke)
#53 - yes, because a more honest and revealing viewpoint that espous…  [+] (1 new reply) 08/21/2014 on Bronies +11
#112 - captainrattrap (08/21/2014) [-]
Don't argue with anon.
#8 - Or, you know. This kid: (see binder) 08/21/2014 on Gooby -2
#97 - I've said it once and I'll say it again. Nothing beat…  [+] (3 new replies) 08/21/2014 on Opening scene of a porn +10
#134 - BerserkerMushroom (08/21/2014) [-]
if you we're a lemon i would put you on my shelf and cherish you
#132 - sirbrentcoe (08/21/2014) [-]
HAY WHAT THE FUCK!
#127 - sinconn (08/21/2014) [-]
#96 - Comment deleted 08/21/2014 on Opening scene of a porn 0
#244 - I've just read most of that image and I'd like to point out it… 08/18/2014 on Heard you liked wallpaper... 0
#243 - Who said ANYTHING about stopping science? I was talki… 08/18/2014 on Heard you liked wallpaper... 0
#85 - Now, I don't want to come off as a raging euphoric neckbeard o…  [+] (5 new replies) 08/18/2014 on Heard you liked wallpaper... +7
#171 - rustmcrust (08/18/2014) [-]
Utter bullshit
#192 - rustmcrust (08/18/2014) [-]
Ttl;dr: It's a complete myth that the church was "stopping science" for a thousdan years. Its complete bullshit and people need to learn that
#244 - larknok (08/18/2014) [-]
I've just read most of that image and I'd like to point out its bias (which is odd, considering that the author is an atheist).

I literally just finished reading a two-hundred something text about the lives of philosophers from the Ancient Greeks all the way up to the Modern, and I can attest to the fact that the Medieval philosophers accomplished far, far less. Now, if the author of such an image wants to combat the straw man account of "nothing philosophical/scientific happened during the Medeival era" then he's aiming way too low, and there's nothing I can do to argue that point. But what *can* be successfully argued is "way less happened philosophically/scientifically during the Medeival era" and I don't think this can be denied.

Consider his rejection of most people's account of Galileo. He's correct that the scientific consensus was against Galileo, but do you think that in Rome or in Greece that you would be put under house arrest and asked to take back what you said if you disagreed with the goddamn scientific community!? No. That's the critical difference.

Disagreeing with a scientific community is necessarily the first step of any new revolutionary undertaking in science. If they fucking put you under house arrest for that shit, good luck having any science or any philosophy.

Also, just going to point out that from a philosophical perspective, Anselm, Abelard and the rest pretty much accomplished nothing. They were so goddamn concerned with reinterpreting Aristotle to be in line with the Bible that they came up with little more than metaphysical claims.

Sure, many -- including Aquinas, Ockham and Duns Scotus did quite a bit -- but the argument is not "did ANYONE do ANYTHING intellectual during the medeival era?" but "would they have done more without the church staring down their necks?" and the answer is undoubtedly: yes.
#243 - larknok (08/18/2014) [-]
Who said ANYTHING about stopping science?

I was talking about banning books (philosophers mostly), telling kings what to do and occasionally putting people to death. Not to mention instigating the Crusades.

You can't deny any of that.
#130 - anonymous (08/18/2014) [-]
> It's just that they don't get to put you to death or ban your books for being a member of another religion anymore.
And thank god for that.
#185 - While this guy is ******* nutballs, I still think…  [+] (1 new reply) 08/18/2014 on When you are reading this +4
User avatar #195 - delphine (08/18/2014) [-]
Agreed. Part of the reason I'm still single is because I don't sleep with a guy until after we've established a solid relationship. I personally can't handle casual hook-ups because I will instantly form a strong emotional bond with a person I sleep with. It happened only once, and it wasn't pretty. I got attached when he wasn't looking for or wanting an attachment. So, never again.
#12 - I'm going in dry Source is Darude Sandstorm … 08/17/2014 on (untitled) 0
#411 - Not at all. I was trying to explain to you the funda… 08/17/2014 on slightly funny title 0
#406 - But I am not aware of whether or not there is one near me. Doe…  [+] (2 new replies) 08/17/2014 on slightly funny title 0
User avatar #410 - tsoper (08/17/2014) [-]
what you are saying, is we should not take anyones beliefs in account because that would be very disadvantageous and dumb.
#411 - larknok (08/17/2014) [-]
Not at all.

I was trying to explain to you the fundamental difference between knowledge and belief. We hold all sorts of beliefs which do not merit knowledge.

Then I tried to show you that supposing knowledge before belief is contradictory to the definition of knowledge.

I did not put any ethical spin of *SHOULD* and *SHOULD NOT*. I merely tried to create a more meaningful discussion by explaining the terminology relevant to such a debate.
#403 - Incorrect. If you take a basic epistemology class, yo…  [+] (4 new replies) 08/17/2014 on slightly funny title 0
User avatar #404 - tsoper (08/17/2014) [-]
its possible that a lion would eat you in the next 10 seconds if you are near one!!!...
#406 - larknok (08/17/2014) [-]
But I am not aware of whether or not there is one near me. Doesn't mean it couldn't happen. I could have missed the radio warnings of an escaped lion. Just because I believe certain things doesn't mean that I know they're true.

I've believed all sorts of things without knowing precisely how accurate my beliefs have been.
User avatar #410 - tsoper (08/17/2014) [-]
what you are saying, is we should not take anyones beliefs in account because that would be very disadvantageous and dumb.
#411 - larknok (08/17/2014) [-]
Not at all.

I was trying to explain to you the fundamental difference between knowledge and belief. We hold all sorts of beliefs which do not merit knowledge.

Then I tried to show you that supposing knowledge before belief is contradictory to the definition of knowledge.

I did not put any ethical spin of *SHOULD* and *SHOULD NOT*. I merely tried to create a more meaningful discussion by explaining the terminology relevant to such a debate.
#228 - What you are saying is actually logically impossible. …  [+] (1 new reply) 08/16/2014 on slightly funny title +1
User avatar #367 - thefates (08/16/2014) [-]
Except, I don't care which way it is. I couldn't care less about it so it could be one or the other for me. The only thing that annoys me is people arguing about it.
#172 - I really hope you're baiting the **** out of me r…  [+] (1 new reply) 08/16/2014 on slightly funny title +8
User avatar #176 - pointblankhits (08/16/2014) [-]
Look at the comment image my friend, That's me
#164 - Listen up you ******* (talking to both Theists an…  [+] (10 new replies) 08/16/2014 on slightly funny title +25
User avatar #255 - tsoper (08/16/2014) [-]
The problem is, people who dont know for sure cant really say what they believe in.

Therefore they would consider themselves just agnostics because choosing a side would be contradictory.

And those who know for sure, dont really know for sure. They believe for sure but cant actually prove anything.

Those people who just classify as athiests or christians without agnostic or gnostic in front of it, because thats what they believe for sure.
#403 - larknok (08/17/2014) [-]
Incorrect.

If you take a basic epistemology class, you would know that Knowledge = True, Justified Belief + Something Else (the something else is part of the Gettier Problem, a larger problem that I won't get into.)

Knowledge is not necessary for belief. Belief is necessary for knowledge.

I don't *know* that a lion won't eat me in the next ten seconds, but I believe that a lion won't eat me in the next ten seconds.
User avatar #404 - tsoper (08/17/2014) [-]
its possible that a lion would eat you in the next 10 seconds if you are near one!!!...
#406 - larknok (08/17/2014) [-]
But I am not aware of whether or not there is one near me. Doesn't mean it couldn't happen. I could have missed the radio warnings of an escaped lion. Just because I believe certain things doesn't mean that I know they're true.

I've believed all sorts of things without knowing precisely how accurate my beliefs have been.
User avatar #410 - tsoper (08/17/2014) [-]
what you are saying, is we should not take anyones beliefs in account because that would be very disadvantageous and dumb.
#411 - larknok (08/17/2014) [-]
Not at all.

I was trying to explain to you the fundamental difference between knowledge and belief. We hold all sorts of beliefs which do not merit knowledge.

Then I tried to show you that supposing knowledge before belief is contradictory to the definition of knowledge.

I did not put any ethical spin of *SHOULD* and *SHOULD NOT*. I merely tried to create a more meaningful discussion by explaining the terminology relevant to such a debate.
#244 - emotep (08/16/2014) [-]
Finally someone who understands the basic terminology. I swear most self proclaimed "agnostics" on this site, have no fucking idea what it means. People are putting everything in boxes like they are choosing a god damn covenant in Dark Souls or something.

I'd never disassociate myself with the term atheism, cause to be quite frank I find the likelihood of deities existing, are about the same as the likelihood that unicorns or dragons are real. [spoiler] But that's just my opinion maaan. [/spoiler]
That doesn't mean I can (nor do I claim to be able to) disapprove every imaginable negative. The same way no one can with 100% certainty disprove every insane tinfoil hat conspiracy theory, such as the Royal family of England being extraterrestrial lizards.

Most atheist doesn't claim that they have proof god doesn't exist, because it is completely nonsense to prove a negative.

So in that sense I'm an agnostic; as I'll never be able to prove, or know for sure, that a divine omni-sentient, omnipotent, and omnipresent being DOESN'T exist.
User avatar #197 - priestoftheoldones (08/16/2014) [-]
I'm an agnostic atheist. Yay!
User avatar #227 - thebritishguy (08/16/2014) [-]
Agnostic atheist is best atheist
#208 - supermandan (08/16/2014) [-]
#161 - U dun ************ up your terms, son. A…  [+] (3 new replies) 08/16/2014 on slightly funny title +4
User avatar #223 - thefates (08/16/2014) [-]
I'm just plain agnostic, I don't lean one way or the other.
#228 - larknok (08/16/2014) [-]
What you are saying is actually logically impossible.

Let's say that I tell you that my 2nd grade teacher cheated on her husband.

It is quite reasonable of you to *not know* if she did, but the matter of the fact is that you either believe me or you don't.

That is, swimming in your mind you either have the conception "I believe that lady cheated on her husband" or you don't have that belief swimming around, and therefore do not believe it.

I hate to be so forward and domineering about it, but it is a binary, and you fall into it or you don't. For example: you are either a white person, or you're not. You either have a hand, or you don't. You live on Planet Earth, or you don't. You believe in God, or you don't.
User avatar #367 - thefates (08/16/2014) [-]
Except, I don't care which way it is. I couldn't care less about it so it could be one or the other for me. The only thing that annoys me is people arguing about it.
#158 - The anon is technically right. But I see what you're…  [+] (1 new reply) 08/16/2014 on slightly funny title +1
#327 - sytheris (08/16/2014) [-]
I personally separate those as Secularist arguments and Theistic arguments.

I basically agree with you though.
#149 - There are better and more descriptive secular ethical codes, b… 08/16/2014 on slightly funny title +1
#54 - If it makes you feel any better, before I posted the text &quo… 08/14/2014 on What bronies do when... 0
#149 - You make a good point while staying funny. I like you… 08/13/2014 on Teh world +1
#85 - Guys, he's asking very nicely. 08/13/2014 on I Am Invincible +1
#43 - And here's Saberspark and Black Gryph0n acting like ***… 08/12/2014 on What bronies do when... +2

Show All Replies Show Shortcuts
Per page:
Order:
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
 Friends (0)