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

hide menu

satoshileex    

Rank #19398 on Comments
satoshileex Avatar Level 130 Comments: Respected Member Of Famiry
Offline
Send mail to satoshileex Block satoshileex Invite satoshileex to be your friend flag avatar
Last status update:
-
Personal Info
Gender: male
Date Signed Up:8/23/2011
Last Login:8/08/2014
Funnyjunk Career Stats
Comment Ranking:#19398
Highest Content Rank:#22091
Highest Comment Rank:#12277
Content Thumbs: 3 total,  27 ,  30
Comment Thumbs: 312 total,  394 ,  82
Content Level Progress: 0% (0/59)
Level 0 Content: Untouched account → Level 1 Content: New Here
Comment Level Progress: 40% (4/10)
Level 130 Comments: Respected Member Of Famiry → Level 131 Comments: Respected Member Of Famiry
Subscribers:0
Content Views:3261
Times Content Favorited:1 times
Total Comments Made:522
FJ Points:305

Show:
Sort by:
Order:

funny pictures

latest user's comments

#12 - I enjoy talking about religion and while I don't think talking…  [+] (1 new reply) 08/07/2014 on satoshileex's profile 0
User avatar #13 - syrianassassin (08/07/2014) [-]
tyt
#83186 - I never mentioned pride, so calm down. Its not arrogance becau…  [+] (1 new reply) 08/07/2014 on Religion Board 0
User avatar #83615 - thebritishguy (08/09/2014) [-]
You may not have mentioned pride but you find it to be valuable or meaningful. You don't know it to be true, or you would be certain of it, none of us has knowledge of a God, nobody can prove it on paper, otherwise faith would be irrelevant. If someone does not find observable evidence of say, a rocket flying to the moon, evidence that the calculations to get a rocket to the moon were correct, then they are morons. Testing hypothesis's, then observing that the hypothesis is correct or incorrect, is a tried and tested method for deriving truth.

I don't say a God does not exist, I'm agnostic. As in "I don't know whether one exists, therefore I can't believe". I am also atheist though, semantically the positions aren't mutually exclusive, you can both not know and not believe.

Allright.
"I have knowledge that my faith is true" This doesn't make sense, the bible defines faith as "faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." If you have observable evidence that it is true then it is no longer "evidence of things not seen". In common language a scientist or historian would not say they have faith in their hypothesis, unless they really are just assuming it without it being poved. If it is personal experience then it is not knowledge, again, experience and knowledge are two completely different things. People have experience aliens, ghosts, Muhammad, Fairies, bigfoot etc.

I like the feelings of curiosity and wonder, they rouse me. I do not say there must not be a God, it is possible there is one or two, I don't have knowledge though and so don't believe. I don't deny a God, but I am using basic logic to determine it as "unbelievable", as in what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. I.e Russells Teapot. Bertrand Russell's Teapot: The Skeptic's View on the Supernatural

#10 - Replying to British, on religion. and I'm good I'm just gettin…  [+] (3 new replies) 08/07/2014 on satoshileex's profile 0
#11 - syrianassassin (08/07/2014) [-]
oh, that autistic crap.

talking to that guy will be 1000% useless, trust me.

with his biggest stupid question who want to scientifically prove god.
what do he think god is some kind of equation?
User avatar #12 - satoshileex (08/07/2014) [-]
I enjoy talking about religion and while I don't think talking to him makes a difference I shall continue.

I have to go so see you later.
User avatar #13 - syrianassassin (08/07/2014) [-]
tyt
#8 - Thanks, but I prefer being friendless on fj, I don't use this …  [+] (5 new replies) 08/07/2014 on satoshileex's profile 0
#9 - syrianassassin (08/07/2014) [-]
so what are you doing and how are you?
User avatar #10 - satoshileex (08/07/2014) [-]
Replying to British, on religion. and I'm good I'm just getting ready to go to work.
#11 - syrianassassin (08/07/2014) [-]
oh, that autistic crap.

talking to that guy will be 1000% useless, trust me.

with his biggest stupid question who want to scientifically prove god.
what do he think god is some kind of equation?
User avatar #12 - satoshileex (08/07/2014) [-]
I enjoy talking about religion and while I don't think talking to him makes a difference I shall continue.

I have to go so see you later.
User avatar #13 - syrianassassin (08/07/2014) [-]
tyt
#83185 - 1. ok 2. is that researched or just a claim? 3. possib…  [+] (3 new replies) 08/07/2014 on Religion Board 0
User avatar #83747 - thebritishguy (08/09/2014) [-]
Thinking about it, the crested gecko loses it's tail only once to evade predators, it doesn't regrow, so something doesn't have to be useful in daily life to have evolutionary value.
#83746 - thebritishguy has deleted their comment.
User avatar #83614 - thebritishguy (08/09/2014) [-]
2. It's a claim as far as I know, however it's highly plausible, does someone born without goosebumps have a significant evolutionary advantage? would you find someone without goosebumps to be a better husband?
3. We can tell from history that things slowly dissappear, you can also see it in embryology and fossils such as whales, they still have pelvis bones.

It doesn't have to be useful in daily life to be evolutionary advantageous, if something tries to kill you one time and succeeds you are an evolutionary failure, so if there is just one component which saves your life once it will make all the difference. For one thing, remember when I said that science has doubled our life span? we used to only live for about 20-30 years, so the heart diseases that we suffer from now weren't a problem for our ancestors who only lived these short lives. Anecdotally there were some reports on how tribal cultures are really healthy because they had no heart disease, cancer, back pain etc. the reports failed to mention that the tribes average lifespan was 15 years, so they wouldn't have suffered these problems anyway. When we have already reproduced, Evolutionary it doesn't make much difference. Success would help you to get laid earlier, evolution isn't about keeping you alive for along time, just long enough for you to reproduce and hopefully to protect your children until they reach sexual maturity. Once you get to like 40 and have 2 adult children evolution doesn't give a fuck about you.

He wouldn't have to destroy the species. He'd just make one from dust. If he made humans he wouldn't add vestigials like loopy langeal nerves, goosebumps, embryonic vestigials, pancreas's etc. he'd just go back to the drawing board and create us perfect.

We are in different cultures, so this may be different

I "removed God" because no matter how hard I tried to have faith, there was not enough evidence to convince me, not because of wordly imperfections. Purpose isn't independant of God.
#82963 - But she did not turn away and continued to serve God because s…  [+] (3 new replies) 08/06/2014 on Religion Board 0
User avatar #83082 - thebritishguy (08/06/2014) [-]
To be certain of what you are not certain of is arrogance, nothing more, it's not something to be proud of. "I don't know this but I'm going to be certain of it."
You spent so long talking about free will and choice, now you say God decides, which one is it? If I am punished because God didn't choose me then that is non sensical.
Something doesn't have to be true in order for it to have explanatory power, otherwise every analogy which is useful in aiding understanding is automatically true. There is a difference between having knowledge that something is true, rather than having faith that it is true. They are mutually exclusive.

I don't force people either, I couldn't anyway.

If I was omniscient I would never know curiosity, suprise, wonder etc. to every film I would know the ending. So I am content with not knowing everything, the drive to find out more is, dare I say it, teoberry is going to kill me, euphoric. It is a false dichotomy to say that you either believe in God or state he doesn't exist, I say that we don't know whether he exists and I can't believe in something unless I know it exists.
User avatar #83186 - satoshileex (08/07/2014) [-]
I never mentioned pride, so calm down. Its not arrogance because you know it to be true, What you find a proof is not sufficent for others, would you not say it is just as arrogant to assume a god does not exist? Like I said a neutral position would be agnostic, not atheist or religious.
To me it is a matter of both, you make the choice yet God also works in your heart to change you. If God truly is what we think a god would be then it already knows what will happen but since we do not and he does not affect our choices (at least not in a way that we can't do something else) we still choose to believe or not. I find that it is a paradox. But there must be some truth to them, otherwise we would not have applicable use for them in the world. Not trying the change the wording but I have knowledge that my faith is true. Like I've said its personal so its not enough to convince you but I'm not trying to anyway.

If you were omniscient you wouldn't really be concerned with curiosity, becoming omniscient from non-omniscient would cause that. I see the miss-communication we have, I believe that there must be a God based off of the world around us and you believe there must not be a God based off of the world around us. I think our presuppositions are always going to conflict. You understand that science is not the way to prove or deny a God, so must rely in other forms of thought like philosophy.
User avatar #83615 - thebritishguy (08/09/2014) [-]
You may not have mentioned pride but you find it to be valuable or meaningful. You don't know it to be true, or you would be certain of it, none of us has knowledge of a God, nobody can prove it on paper, otherwise faith would be irrelevant. If someone does not find observable evidence of say, a rocket flying to the moon, evidence that the calculations to get a rocket to the moon were correct, then they are morons. Testing hypothesis's, then observing that the hypothesis is correct or incorrect, is a tried and tested method for deriving truth.

I don't say a God does not exist, I'm agnostic. As in "I don't know whether one exists, therefore I can't believe". I am also atheist though, semantically the positions aren't mutually exclusive, you can both not know and not believe.

Allright.
"I have knowledge that my faith is true" This doesn't make sense, the bible defines faith as "faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." If you have observable evidence that it is true then it is no longer "evidence of things not seen". In common language a scientist or historian would not say they have faith in their hypothesis, unless they really are just assuming it without it being poved. If it is personal experience then it is not knowledge, again, experience and knowledge are two completely different things. People have experience aliens, ghosts, Muhammad, Fairies, bigfoot etc.

I like the feelings of curiosity and wonder, they rouse me. I do not say there must not be a God, it is possible there is one or two, I don't have knowledge though and so don't believe. I don't deny a God, but I am using basic logic to determine it as "unbelievable", as in what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. I.e Russells Teapot. Bertrand Russell's Teapot: The Skeptic's View on the Supernatural

#82957 - My point is why have we not evolved to remove them and those o…  [+] (1 new reply) 08/06/2014 on Religion Board 0
User avatar #83083 - thebritishguy (08/06/2014) [-]
I thought I explained why, I'll sum it up, the Dawkster talks about it here to. Richard Dawkins demonstrates laryngeal nerve of the giraffe
1. It is impossible to re route or remove some organs and nerves because that wold stop the analogous motor from running.
2. It is so insignificant that those without the vestigial aren't particularly succesfull.
3. It's going away slowly.

I think the stress reaction is still very useful, I've seen many lucky scrapes and survivalist behavious from people pumped with adrenaline, like the woman who lifted the car off her husband. The stress disorders aren't really a big deal in terms of evolutionary value though as by the time they kill you you would probably have had kids. Also I remember in psychology the people who had a type A personality, people who were prone to stress, were actually more motivated and successful (www.simplypsychology.org/personality-a.html) so stress may be evolutionary valuable in our culture.
If it was an omnipotent designer there would be no reason it would have to keep the engine running. It could just stop the engine and start from square one to make the most efficient engine, as Dawkins said it could "go back to the drawing board".

I consider it relatively normal because it is common. However I don't determine morality from what is normal, otherwise I wouldn't be against religion. Just a few generations away slavery and racism were normal but they were still bad things.

God has his own eugenic parasites, what a lovely image. I don't see this purpose that you speak of, I think you must first assume a God to speculate in this way.
#82784 - not sure where this would go but you should try readdit. I fee… 08/05/2014 on Religion Board 0
#82781 - But out of the mind those principles and methods are made to s…  [+] (1 new reply) 08/05/2014 on Religion Board 0
User avatar #82785 - thebritishguy (08/05/2014) [-]
Those methods and principles didn't come from a single mind, as Newton said he could do what he did because he was standing on the shoulders of giants. Those giants built the method and worked with it.
Perhaps science yes, but it's not a naturalistic theory, if you adopt naturalism as your philosophy you would have to drop the God thing. As it is not naturalistic but supernaturalistic. He's a young earth creationist, he thinks the universe is only 6000 years old and we lived with dinosaurs. Those things are not selected for us, they are vestigial, meaning they were useful for previous ancestors but not for us, goosebumps are a good example. The Trex arms may have actually been useful though for mating or for getting back on its feet, we don't know. Their tiny arms were actually fairly strong, they had 3 times as much strength as our arms. Some vestigial things are just there because they are in the process of dissapearing or because they can't change without killing the species. Natural selection is like an engineer who has to adapt an engine, however he has to keep the engine running while he adapts it. So for instance it would be useful if we could re wire our langeal nerves, however this would stop the motor running (to remove or unplug the langeal neve as to reposition it would kill us) so evolution can't make it hapen. Also sometimes the vestigial doesn't make a significant difference and so people born without it aren't at an advantage, I suspect this is what happened with goosebumps.

You live in a very different place than me, there are many teen Mums in my Town. Not always, some people kill things for sport, entertainment, money etc. makes it easy to accept we are a chromosome away from shit flinging apes.

You have a point, but the mosquito is one of the worlds biggest killers and no animal eats it, so this has no purpose.
#82780 - In a roundabout way yes you are right, I guess. I tho…  [+] (5 new replies) 08/05/2014 on Religion Board 0
User avatar #82787 - thebritishguy (08/05/2014) [-]
I didn't say she was not a Christian, I just used her as an example of someone who could not simply decide that she was to believe in something, instead she was crippled and tortured by her doubt.

//either we know far less than we think we do about the world or it was a miracle.//The first option is correct, "I don't know" is often not the comfortable answer but the honest one.

Personal reasons are what I mean when I say "the mind alone", I mean using your experience or "common sense" rather than academia or philosophy. As Dawkins said "if you base medicine on science it cures people", indeed by you typing out this message and sending it to me you are proving yourself that science is definitely reliable. You could not say the same of faith, in fact you concede the opposite, that it is unreliable and most who have it are deluded. How you can look at this and conclude that they are reliable as each other, while using a computer which works upon scientific principles, that sounds crazy to me yes.

It is true that the science does not know everything, it is true though that religion does not know anything. If you have faith in something you do not have knowledge of it.

I do care if people believe in falsehoods because they are being conned and decieved.

Many questions like "Why are we here?" "Is there an outside of our universe?" "When did time "begin"?" I am satisfied with not knowing, I do not fnd it necessary to assume a God when it is more honest to admit that nobody knows. I like the curiosity, it suits me.
User avatar #82963 - satoshileex (08/06/2014) [-]
But she did not turn away and continued to serve God because she had faith.
You have to understand faith to a person who has faith is equal to fact. You may not be certain 100% but you have enough certainty to believe that it is true. Faith is being certain of what you can't be certain of.
I think that the Christians are fairly accurate in believing that only god can truly make you believe.
How is it true that religion knows nothing when religious concepts are what help us understand philosophy? That does not make sense..." If you have faith in something you do not have knowledge of it. "

I care but I acknowledge that I can't convince them by saying they are wrong therefore I am not going to try. I will talk to them if they want but I will not force them.

How can you be curious yet satisfied with not knowing questions. I'm never satisfied with the knowledge that I have. I always desire more. I'm more than willing to accept that a god doesn't exist but I don't see that as a provable statement so I choose to believe that something exist.
User avatar #83082 - thebritishguy (08/06/2014) [-]
To be certain of what you are not certain of is arrogance, nothing more, it's not something to be proud of. "I don't know this but I'm going to be certain of it."
You spent so long talking about free will and choice, now you say God decides, which one is it? If I am punished because God didn't choose me then that is non sensical.
Something doesn't have to be true in order for it to have explanatory power, otherwise every analogy which is useful in aiding understanding is automatically true. There is a difference between having knowledge that something is true, rather than having faith that it is true. They are mutually exclusive.

I don't force people either, I couldn't anyway.

If I was omniscient I would never know curiosity, suprise, wonder etc. to every film I would know the ending. So I am content with not knowing everything, the drive to find out more is, dare I say it, teoberry is going to kill me, euphoric. It is a false dichotomy to say that you either believe in God or state he doesn't exist, I say that we don't know whether he exists and I can't believe in something unless I know it exists.
User avatar #83186 - satoshileex (08/07/2014) [-]
I never mentioned pride, so calm down. Its not arrogance because you know it to be true, What you find a proof is not sufficent for others, would you not say it is just as arrogant to assume a god does not exist? Like I said a neutral position would be agnostic, not atheist or religious.
To me it is a matter of both, you make the choice yet God also works in your heart to change you. If God truly is what we think a god would be then it already knows what will happen but since we do not and he does not affect our choices (at least not in a way that we can't do something else) we still choose to believe or not. I find that it is a paradox. But there must be some truth to them, otherwise we would not have applicable use for them in the world. Not trying the change the wording but I have knowledge that my faith is true. Like I've said its personal so its not enough to convince you but I'm not trying to anyway.

If you were omniscient you wouldn't really be concerned with curiosity, becoming omniscient from non-omniscient would cause that. I see the miss-communication we have, I believe that there must be a God based off of the world around us and you believe there must not be a God based off of the world around us. I think our presuppositions are always going to conflict. You understand that science is not the way to prove or deny a God, so must rely in other forms of thought like philosophy.
User avatar #83615 - thebritishguy (08/09/2014) [-]
You may not have mentioned pride but you find it to be valuable or meaningful. You don't know it to be true, or you would be certain of it, none of us has knowledge of a God, nobody can prove it on paper, otherwise faith would be irrelevant. If someone does not find observable evidence of say, a rocket flying to the moon, evidence that the calculations to get a rocket to the moon were correct, then they are morons. Testing hypothesis's, then observing that the hypothesis is correct or incorrect, is a tried and tested method for deriving truth.

I don't say a God does not exist, I'm agnostic. As in "I don't know whether one exists, therefore I can't believe". I am also atheist though, semantically the positions aren't mutually exclusive, you can both not know and not believe.

Allright.
"I have knowledge that my faith is true" This doesn't make sense, the bible defines faith as "faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." If you have observable evidence that it is true then it is no longer "evidence of things not seen". In common language a scientist or historian would not say they have faith in their hypothesis, unless they really are just assuming it without it being poved. If it is personal experience then it is not knowledge, again, experience and knowledge are two completely different things. People have experience aliens, ghosts, Muhammad, Fairies, bigfoot etc.

I like the feelings of curiosity and wonder, they rouse me. I do not say there must not be a God, it is possible there is one or two, I don't have knowledge though and so don't believe. I don't deny a God, but I am using basic logic to determine it as "unbelievable", as in what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. I.e Russells Teapot. Bertrand Russell's Teapot: The Skeptic's View on the Supernatural


Show All Replies Show Shortcuts
Per page:
Order:
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#7 - syrianassassin (08/07/2014) [-]
you have no friends?
#8 to #7 - satoshileex (08/07/2014) [-]
Thanks, but I prefer being friendless on fj, I don't use this site enough. Thanks though!
#9 to #8 - syrianassassin (08/07/2014) [-]
so what are you doing and how are you?
so what are you doing and how are you?
User avatar #10 to #9 - satoshileex (08/07/2014) [-]
Replying to British, on religion. and I'm good I'm just getting ready to go to work.
#11 to #10 - syrianassassin (08/07/2014) [-]
oh, that autistic crap.

talking to that guy will be 1000% useless, trust me.

with his biggest stupid question who want to scientifically prove god.
what do he think god is some kind of equation?
User avatar #12 to #11 - satoshileex (08/07/2014) [-]
I enjoy talking about religion and while I don't think talking to him makes a difference I shall continue.

I have to go so see you later.
#1 - syrianassassin (07/27/2014) [-]
what do you think about me?
what do you think about me?
User avatar #2 to #1 - satoshileex (07/27/2014) [-]
Do you mean on the religion board? Well the few times you did debate were nice and I enjoyed the discussion you had. But now you aren't interested in that, all you really do is troll while sometimes showing verses from the Quran. I preferred you when you talked to people. I know you stopped trying because people complained about your spelling and grammar but I think you would be better overall if you ignored the atheist that aren't even trying and tried to respond to the atheist that seem serious. Overall you are alright just a little misguided. At least that's what I think. Also you seem like a fairly nice guy but the attempts at trolling are what put other users off to talking to you.
#3 to #2 - syrianassassin (07/27/2014) [-]
well , i do have friends who support me. all of those people who are mad at me are kikes and some autistic people. because i said the truth about them in some 						*********					. now they are mad and some never come again.   
   
for example, that gary guy is fag who posted his small tiny asshole which looks like a 15 years old body on gay.   
   
and the british 						****					 attempted to do some 						******					 propaganda. so i played a nice fair game with him using the truth.   
   
while the JIDF there are just mad kikes trying to say we have excuse for our genocide because our excuse is genocide.   
   
im playing their own game fairly, but with fire
well , i do have friends who support me. all of those people who are mad at me are kikes and some autistic people. because i said the truth about them in some ********* . now they are mad and some never come again.

for example, that gary guy is fag who posted his small tiny asshole which looks like a 15 years old body on gay.

and the british **** attempted to do some ****** propaganda. so i played a nice fair game with him using the truth.

while the JIDF there are just mad kikes trying to say we have excuse for our genocide because our excuse is genocide.

im playing their own game fairly, but with fire
User avatar #4 to #3 - satoshileex (07/29/2014) [-]
Sorry for the late post, I don't get on this site that often. I understand that, I don't think your friends are wrong to some degree. But like I said I think you would be better off not trolling and just responding to serious arguments. You still respond to serious arguments but because you troll people also complain about that. For me (not saying you should follow me) but being kind and respectful to the other trolls and possible assholes usually works out better than raging and fight them.
User avatar #6 to #4 - satoshileex (07/29/2014) [-]
Sorry let me rephrase that fourth sentence. you still respond to serious arguments but because you also troll people complain and discredit you through that. (not saying its right or wrong but they do)
User avatar #5 to #4 - syrianassassin (07/29/2014) [-]
i stopped coming to the board for some time, let the seed grow to a huge tree so i can CHOP IT
 Friends (0)