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

hide menu

simplescience    

Rank #9117 on Subscribers
simplescience Avatar Level 305 Comments: Lord Of Laughs
Offline
Send mail to simplescience Block simplescience Invite simplescience to be your friend flag avatar
Last status update:
-
Personal Info
Gender: male
Age: 22
Consoles Owned: PS3, DS, Wii
Video Games Played: God of War, Jak and Daxter, Portal 2, Soul Calibur V, SSBM
PSN: Head_of_the_FBI
Date Signed Up:3/31/2011
Last Login:10/20/2014
Location:College
Funnyjunk Career Stats
Comment Ranking:#20795
Highest Content Rank:#871
Highest Comment Rank:#180
Content Thumbs: 5878 total,  6735 ,  857
Comment Thumbs: 10587 total,  11939 ,  1352
Content Level Progress: 77% (77/100)
Level 158 Content: Faptastic → Level 159 Content: Faptastic
Comment Level Progress: 55% (55/100)
Level 305 Comments: Lord Of Laughs → Level 306 Comments: Lord Of Laughs
Subscribers:8
Content Views:76122
Times Content Favorited:532 times
Total Comments Made:2015
FJ Points:16937
Favorite Tags: the other game (8) | como (7) | jefe (7) | UN (7) | battles (5) | epic (5) | Rap (5) | ERBOH (4) | the (3) | cuteness (2) | game (2) | kindness (2) | other (2) | Portal (2)
Hi there. My name is Simplescience, my real first name being Matt. I came to funnyjunk in the hopes of making it a little better than when I found it. Optimistic, cheerful, and a logical thinker, I do my best to make other people feel better if they are down.









My profile picture is of Mr. Game and Watch using the move Judgement: 9. This move has a 1/10 chance of bringing up a 9. If a 9 comes up and it connects with an opponent, it is a One-Hit Knock Out.

latest user's comments

#514 - First off, you assume all funnyjunk users are morons (you don'…  [+] (2 new replies) 03/01/2013 on religion, bitches. 0
#515 - blacknbluebrony (03/01/2013) [-]
I never even claimed that all the users on this site are morons, you're just assuming that. All I said what that they are bipolar to the point where you'll see posts hating on a certain topic one day, and the next day it will be the complete obvious. As in the site as a whole has a bipolar tendency, not every single user.

You've basically gone against my claims by stating that I needed physical proof , that you were correct based off of the fact that maybe a few users on this site agree with you, and that you were just using "common sense". I'm speaking from what I assumed was common sense and my own past experience, put you claimed these as irrelevant, but the same can be said about your own argument. Like I said, you claim I lack evidence when you're the one basing your whole argument on a rather infinitesimal portion of a website for funny pictures, you're claim of using logical reasoning (which is a very abstract subject), but you really have no other supporting points besides that. So of course I dismissed your evidence as nearly irrelevant.

Now back on subject. You claim that any atheistic or agnostic person is oppressed in society, and I only disagreed. Now, unless you live in some deep south, strongly conservative town, generally almost every Christian I can think of are tolerant to the beliefs of others unless you try to shove yours down their throats -which seems to happen A LOT on here.

Religious people run the world? In a way yes, mainly because they are the majority, so of course the majority of leaders are religious. But they're certainly not oppressed from being able to achieve in life. Although there aren't many non-religious people who hold public offices in the US, it is quite common in many other countries. Plus a large percentage of scientists and other related professions are atheistic as well. So the non-religious are being oppressed and treated as outcasts? Hardly.

#519 - simplescience (03/01/2013) [-]
As I said in my statement, you didn't claim it, but you heavily implied it. By saying that they are bipolar and constantly changing their opinions/hopping on a bandwagon, you're implying that a majority of the users here are too stupid to think for themselves and will instead just follow whatever appears to be the popular opinion. So, yeah, you didn't say exactly that the people of the site are dumb, but you made quite the heavy implication from it.

Furthermore, you assume that just because a piece of content makes it to the front page, that automatically means that the entire site agrees with it being there. You also assume that it's always the same people thumbing up the differing content which gets it to the front page and noticed, that it's the same people who make the comments that agree with religious posts and then turn around and agree with atheists posts. By saying "the site as a whole", that means you're including every user who uses the site. if you make any exclusions, then its not the site as a whole, just part of it.

You claim they are hardly oppressed and treated as outcasts, that my whole argument is based on the comments section of my original comment. The comment favoring my side is only the tip of the iceberg, as I'm about to show you. You want evidence? I've got plenty:

First: tinyurl.com/mnljwa
Second: tinyurl.com/37683
Third: tinyurl.com/akvssv9
Fourth: tinyurl.com/b4m6jxv
Fifth: tinyurl.com/5q4oj
Sixth: tinyurl.com/bjzxxcv
Seventh: tinyurl.com/axa27g6
Eighth: tinyurl.com/bbl937t
Ninth: tinyurl.com/r4jncj
Tenth: tinyurl.com/cfo34ca

Read all these and then try to justify your position that atheists "hardly" face oppression or are treated as outcasts. Don't be shy about asking for more either, there's plenty where those came from.
#508 - Well, based on the fact that I have a number of people here ag…  [+] (4 new replies) 02/28/2013 on religion, bitches. 0
User avatar #509 - blacknbluebrony (02/28/2013) [-]
So we're deciding this based on Funnyjunk users, many of whom are bipolar to the point that they blatantly speak about how religion is such an awful thing one day, then preach about how atheists shove their beliefs down people's throats and how religion is a good thing the next. Your statements are no more supported than mine.
User avatar #514 - simplescience (03/01/2013) [-]
First off, you assume all funnyjunk users are morons (you don't state it directly, but it is obviously implied), which is really mean of you. If you read just some of the conversations I've had below, that alone proves that your claim is incorrect, as it has been seen that plenty of funnyjunk users are intelligent enough to think for themselves.

Second, if what you claim about funnyjunk users being "bipolar" was true, then it stands to reason I would have had many more complaints to my comment. The chance that everybody's "bipolar" tendencies are perfectly in sync with one another is practically zero. Case in point, you displayed the "characteristics" you defined in your statement, meaning that not all of funnyjunk users think the same, meaning that I should have had more strong dissenters besides you. I did not, so therefore, your statement is nothing more than a farce, and is invalid.

You backed yourself into a corner. If your bipolar statement is not allowed to stand, then all you're doing is basically saying that the evidence doesn't lean in my direction just because you don't like the it. Even if your bipolar statement is allowed to stand, I've already proven it to be invalid.

I'm not done yet.

Third, you're making a strawman argument in response to my claim. I have evidence on this comment thread that I can point to, and logical reasoning to back it up. Your counter-argument is attacking the evidence presented by basically saying "that evidence doesn't count", with no further proof of backing it up other than your mass generalization.

Based on these points, my presented evidence is still allowed to stand because I have provided evidence, and you have not satisfactorily dismissed it. Therefore, your comment claiming of our statements being of equal merit is rendered invalid, and by extension, your statement of over-exaggeration is also rendered invalid unless you can bring a real argument to the table.

The burden of proof is on you.
#515 - blacknbluebrony (03/01/2013) [-]
I never even claimed that all the users on this site are morons, you're just assuming that. All I said what that they are bipolar to the point where you'll see posts hating on a certain topic one day, and the next day it will be the complete obvious. As in the site as a whole has a bipolar tendency, not every single user.

You've basically gone against my claims by stating that I needed physical proof , that you were correct based off of the fact that maybe a few users on this site agree with you, and that you were just using "common sense". I'm speaking from what I assumed was common sense and my own past experience, put you claimed these as irrelevant, but the same can be said about your own argument. Like I said, you claim I lack evidence when you're the one basing your whole argument on a rather infinitesimal portion of a website for funny pictures, you're claim of using logical reasoning (which is a very abstract subject), but you really have no other supporting points besides that. So of course I dismissed your evidence as nearly irrelevant.

Now back on subject. You claim that any atheistic or agnostic person is oppressed in society, and I only disagreed. Now, unless you live in some deep south, strongly conservative town, generally almost every Christian I can think of are tolerant to the beliefs of others unless you try to shove yours down their throats -which seems to happen A LOT on here.

Religious people run the world? In a way yes, mainly because they are the majority, so of course the majority of leaders are religious. But they're certainly not oppressed from being able to achieve in life. Although there aren't many non-religious people who hold public offices in the US, it is quite common in many other countries. Plus a large percentage of scientists and other related professions are atheistic as well. So the non-religious are being oppressed and treated as outcasts? Hardly.

#519 - simplescience (03/01/2013) [-]
As I said in my statement, you didn't claim it, but you heavily implied it. By saying that they are bipolar and constantly changing their opinions/hopping on a bandwagon, you're implying that a majority of the users here are too stupid to think for themselves and will instead just follow whatever appears to be the popular opinion. So, yeah, you didn't say exactly that the people of the site are dumb, but you made quite the heavy implication from it.

Furthermore, you assume that just because a piece of content makes it to the front page, that automatically means that the entire site agrees with it being there. You also assume that it's always the same people thumbing up the differing content which gets it to the front page and noticed, that it's the same people who make the comments that agree with religious posts and then turn around and agree with atheists posts. By saying "the site as a whole", that means you're including every user who uses the site. if you make any exclusions, then its not the site as a whole, just part of it.

You claim they are hardly oppressed and treated as outcasts, that my whole argument is based on the comments section of my original comment. The comment favoring my side is only the tip of the iceberg, as I'm about to show you. You want evidence? I've got plenty:

First: tinyurl.com/mnljwa
Second: tinyurl.com/37683
Third: tinyurl.com/akvssv9
Fourth: tinyurl.com/b4m6jxv
Fifth: tinyurl.com/5q4oj
Sixth: tinyurl.com/bjzxxcv
Seventh: tinyurl.com/axa27g6
Eighth: tinyurl.com/bbl937t
Ninth: tinyurl.com/r4jncj
Tenth: tinyurl.com/cfo34ca

Read all these and then try to justify your position that atheists "hardly" face oppression or are treated as outcasts. Don't be shy about asking for more either, there's plenty where those came from.
#473 - I challenge your notion that there is such a thing as an athei… 02/28/2013 on religion, bitches. +1
#461 - While I do agree with your reasoning as to how our views are s…  [+] (7 new replies) 02/28/2013 on religion, bitches. 0
#510 - strikeoflightning (02/28/2013) [-]
I understand your reasoning. Your thoughts make perfect sense, but I believe we've reached a misunderstanding.

See, I don't mean they're less significant because they're pushed aside. I mean that, because they're so normal and widely accepted, they don't need people constantly defending them.

Using your example, if someone says that we conduct involuntary photosynthesis, one of two things will happen: someone will say that it's an interesting way to look at it, or someone will think they're wrong or will disagree because we obviously require an oxygen intake rather than one of carbon dioxide and will either argue or let it the person think what they'd like.

In this analogy, you and I would simply let the person think what they'd like. If we do that, our opinions matter less because they aren't publicly challenging what is being stated. Because we don't bluntly state our opinion, our opinion is seen as weak, because we don't try to spread it as fact and therefore, according to society, we are unsure about them. Someone who would call the person out on their misinterpretation of the respiratory system would be the one with the recognized opinion. Even if we have the same opinion, ours have no strength behind it.
#516 - simplescience (03/01/2013) [-]
You're implying (I think) that nothing can be gained from focusing on someone with a passive opinion that goes along with the majority since there is an abundance of those views already. I strongly disagree with that assessment on the grounds a passive opinion to the accepted view does not automatically mean being passive or nonchalant about the entire topic.

It is entirely possible to go along with the majority and have a passive opinion with the main point but have a differing view as to how your belief works, or have a different way of reaching what the majority view is. Furthermore, you could go along with the main view, but disagree with bits and pieces about it. It's input of those that are passive which drives much of our world.

Think of it this way: What if the only feedback a company got was assertive views of both sides when asking for how an aspect could be improved. The company would be at a loss in determining what it should actually do. The opinions of a passive person could be seen as "This person seems to like the way things are, but doesn't denounce change. Perhaps we should consider keeping things the same for now, but leave the door open for improvements". In choosing such an option, it could result in helping to boost happiness of both sides who may have been more assertive since they each got something they wanted, and could be better for a company whose still unsure about making changes at the time. Yet, that decided action didn't come from one who strongly asserted their side. It came from a passive thinker.
#518 - strikeoflightning (03/01/2013) [-]
I think you've got me beat at this point. I don't have a rebuttal for that because I see no flaws in your argument.

I have to say, you're the most intellectual person I've ever had the pleasure to debate with, and you definitely know your way around the English language. I'm glad to have had this opportunity.
#520 - simplescience (03/01/2013) [-]
I thank you very much for such a kind compliment. I would like to share my opinion of you as well.

You are someone I'm glad to have conversed with, especially because throughout our discourse, you did not sink to calling me names or trying to start a ragefest, or dismiss what I said for an arbitrary reason. You continued to converse with me even though our views are different, and when I misunderstood, you instead told me what you meant instead of calling me names. Such a conversational partner seems to not come along very often, and I'm honestly glad that we had this discourse. If you ever are really bored and check through other comments I've made, you'll find I love to have debates, as I believe they keep the mind sharp.

I would like to also return the compliment in regards to mastery of the English language. It was always fun to read your replies because you went beyond normal expressions to get your point home.

Perhaps we'll have another discussion sometime?

(MFW your generous compliments:
<--
#521 - strikeoflightning (03/01/2013) [-]
I find an angry debate the least useful. It isn't truly a debate if there is no swaying of opinion being had. There's no reason to get angry because you didn't downsize my opinion a single time; you simply stated your own and gave your own supporting details. People are too sensitive to words nowadays. People believe that because they get offended, something should be done about the offense.

I'm always open to a friendly debate about any topic I have knowledge on. If I'm ignorant on the topic, then it's more of a lesson than a debate. Feel free to PM me or comment on my profile at any time; there's never a time that I'm not willing to socialize. Even in the worst of moods, the only cure to irritability is letting yourself be in your normal environment -- which happens to be socialization in my case.

Thank you for your compliment. While I'm not disagreeing, I fail to see any abnormal expressions that I've said. Although, if I said them, they must be normal to me. It's also a possibility that I'm saying expressions incorrectly; I'm not a native English speaker.

I'll do the honors of sending you a friend request.
User avatar #522 - simplescience (03/01/2013) [-]
Not a native English speaker? You truly could have fooled me (not sarcasm). I never would have guessed.

As for me, my English usage comes from my parents. They have an extensive vocabulary and love reading, and as a result, they're great at using the language. They bestowed such wisdom on me, and I just ran with it. For that I am grateful.

As for abnormal expressions, what I meant is that you found ways to reword your statements if I misunderstood or if they were unclear, making it easier for me to reply. What made it more impressive is that, in my opinion, these weren't light topics, yet you were able to rephrase them (what seemed like from my perspective) effortlessly. That's amazing.

Friend request accepted. :)
#523 - strikeoflightning (03/01/2013) [-]
I am born in France. I live in the United States now, but my first language is French.

That's always great. I get most of my syntax and diction from fights with my ex-girlfriend, honestly. I've found that the only way to calm a raging bull is to be calmer than the bull before the rage.

Well, thank you! I'm glad to be able to clarify what I'm trying to say without sounding like a bumbling buffoon. You seem to effortlessly throw your sentences together as well, and even with complex sentence structure, your sentences are easy to follow.
#443 - First off, I thought I'd see if you were reading through my co…  [+] (9 new replies) 02/28/2013 on religion, bitches. 0
#449 - strikeoflightning (02/28/2013) [-]
I have to say, I enjoy conversing with you. If I weren't in the middle of writing a research paper, I would be much more involved.

While I agree with the fact that we hear more of the radicals because they're outside of the average attitude of society, I have to disagree and say that our opinions, as passive theists/atheists, are worth less. We are part of a group with beliefs that are not controversial. If I tell you "Humans breathe air," you will agree and we will move on because there is nothing to disagree or argue. However, if I tell you "I wish humans could breathe underwater," there is something to argue so a conversation could ensue. There's an agreement or disagreement to be had because there is more than one side to the topic.

If I tell you "I am Christian, but I don't care what other people believe," the general response is appreciation. Nobody is going to scold me for doing exactly what I'm supposed to do as a Christian and not harming anybody. However, if I say "I am Christian, and you should be too," you could disagree and then conversations on belief begin.

Because controversy and conversation cannot ignite from passive thoughts such as ours, they become unimportant to society as opinions.
#461 - simplescience (02/28/2013) [-]
While I do agree with your reasoning as to how our views are seen, I have to challenge your view of them being less important, and (if you haven't guessed by now) I'll tell you why.

First off, I'd like to point to your "I wish humans could breathe air" statement. That view is not exactly controversial, but actually imaginative and leaves itself open to interesting speculation as to how it might be different if that's how humans breathed air. A controversial statement would be "Humans don't actually breathe air. We actually breathe by involuntarily conducting photosynthesis".

Getting to my actual reasoning as to my challenge, a view that is seen as not against the norms does not mean either it or the person who believes it is valued any less or seen as insignificant, belief-wise because if those views were as you claim they were, then by eliminating them, the controversial views would become the dominant view, and would run unopposed. I'll give you an example to show you what I mean:

Say there was a person claiming that humans actually conducted photosynthesis. By the logic you're stating, if someone went up and directly challenged the controversial view with the accepted view society has, that we breathe air, their opinion would be pushed to the side. Let's go one more step and say this person was posted on Funnyjunk. If the accepted view were seen as less valuable and unimportant to society, then those who would state that humans actually breathe air would be criticized for believing that view.

That's rarely the case when someone with a controversial view makes it into the spotlight. Depending on the severity of the controversy caused, that person will usually be ignored or ridiculed, and the accepted norm will continue to stand.

To put it bluntly, I think that more passive views aren't heard of as much because they aren't money makers. They don't draw attention. However, that does not mean their importance or worth is any less.
#510 - strikeoflightning (02/28/2013) [-]
I understand your reasoning. Your thoughts make perfect sense, but I believe we've reached a misunderstanding.

See, I don't mean they're less significant because they're pushed aside. I mean that, because they're so normal and widely accepted, they don't need people constantly defending them.

Using your example, if someone says that we conduct involuntary photosynthesis, one of two things will happen: someone will say that it's an interesting way to look at it, or someone will think they're wrong or will disagree because we obviously require an oxygen intake rather than one of carbon dioxide and will either argue or let it the person think what they'd like.

In this analogy, you and I would simply let the person think what they'd like. If we do that, our opinions matter less because they aren't publicly challenging what is being stated. Because we don't bluntly state our opinion, our opinion is seen as weak, because we don't try to spread it as fact and therefore, according to society, we are unsure about them. Someone who would call the person out on their misinterpretation of the respiratory system would be the one with the recognized opinion. Even if we have the same opinion, ours have no strength behind it.
#516 - simplescience (03/01/2013) [-]
You're implying (I think) that nothing can be gained from focusing on someone with a passive opinion that goes along with the majority since there is an abundance of those views already. I strongly disagree with that assessment on the grounds a passive opinion to the accepted view does not automatically mean being passive or nonchalant about the entire topic.

It is entirely possible to go along with the majority and have a passive opinion with the main point but have a differing view as to how your belief works, or have a different way of reaching what the majority view is. Furthermore, you could go along with the main view, but disagree with bits and pieces about it. It's input of those that are passive which drives much of our world.

Think of it this way: What if the only feedback a company got was assertive views of both sides when asking for how an aspect could be improved. The company would be at a loss in determining what it should actually do. The opinions of a passive person could be seen as "This person seems to like the way things are, but doesn't denounce change. Perhaps we should consider keeping things the same for now, but leave the door open for improvements". In choosing such an option, it could result in helping to boost happiness of both sides who may have been more assertive since they each got something they wanted, and could be better for a company whose still unsure about making changes at the time. Yet, that decided action didn't come from one who strongly asserted their side. It came from a passive thinker.
#518 - strikeoflightning (03/01/2013) [-]
I think you've got me beat at this point. I don't have a rebuttal for that because I see no flaws in your argument.

I have to say, you're the most intellectual person I've ever had the pleasure to debate with, and you definitely know your way around the English language. I'm glad to have had this opportunity.
#520 - simplescience (03/01/2013) [-]
I thank you very much for such a kind compliment. I would like to share my opinion of you as well.

You are someone I'm glad to have conversed with, especially because throughout our discourse, you did not sink to calling me names or trying to start a ragefest, or dismiss what I said for an arbitrary reason. You continued to converse with me even though our views are different, and when I misunderstood, you instead told me what you meant instead of calling me names. Such a conversational partner seems to not come along very often, and I'm honestly glad that we had this discourse. If you ever are really bored and check through other comments I've made, you'll find I love to have debates, as I believe they keep the mind sharp.

I would like to also return the compliment in regards to mastery of the English language. It was always fun to read your replies because you went beyond normal expressions to get your point home.

Perhaps we'll have another discussion sometime?

(MFW your generous compliments:
<--
#521 - strikeoflightning (03/01/2013) [-]
I find an angry debate the least useful. It isn't truly a debate if there is no swaying of opinion being had. There's no reason to get angry because you didn't downsize my opinion a single time; you simply stated your own and gave your own supporting details. People are too sensitive to words nowadays. People believe that because they get offended, something should be done about the offense.

I'm always open to a friendly debate about any topic I have knowledge on. If I'm ignorant on the topic, then it's more of a lesson than a debate. Feel free to PM me or comment on my profile at any time; there's never a time that I'm not willing to socialize. Even in the worst of moods, the only cure to irritability is letting yourself be in your normal environment -- which happens to be socialization in my case.

Thank you for your compliment. While I'm not disagreeing, I fail to see any abnormal expressions that I've said. Although, if I said them, they must be normal to me. It's also a possibility that I'm saying expressions incorrectly; I'm not a native English speaker.

I'll do the honors of sending you a friend request.
User avatar #522 - simplescience (03/01/2013) [-]
Not a native English speaker? You truly could have fooled me (not sarcasm). I never would have guessed.

As for me, my English usage comes from my parents. They have an extensive vocabulary and love reading, and as a result, they're great at using the language. They bestowed such wisdom on me, and I just ran with it. For that I am grateful.

As for abnormal expressions, what I meant is that you found ways to reword your statements if I misunderstood or if they were unclear, making it easier for me to reply. What made it more impressive is that, in my opinion, these weren't light topics, yet you were able to rephrase them (what seemed like from my perspective) effortlessly. That's amazing.

Friend request accepted. :)
#523 - strikeoflightning (03/01/2013) [-]
I am born in France. I live in the United States now, but my first language is French.

That's always great. I get most of my syntax and diction from fights with my ex-girlfriend, honestly. I've found that the only way to calm a raging bull is to be calmer than the bull before the rage.

Well, thank you! I'm glad to be able to clarify what I'm trying to say without sounding like a bumbling buffoon. You seem to effortlessly throw your sentences together as well, and even with complex sentence structure, your sentences are easy to follow.
#439 - Of course it would be dumb to say that there are no exceptions…  [+] (6 new replies) 02/28/2013 on religion, bitches. 0
User avatar #490 - blacknbluebrony (02/28/2013) [-]
I don't see how anyone could back up their point on anything like this over the Internet nor do I know of any sort of physical proof or data I can show you to prove my claim. You're saying that atheists are often treated as social outcasts and are ridiculed for their beliefs, and I disagree based off of my past experience. Just because someone is Christian, doesn't mean that they'll try to "save you" or try to convert you if your an atheist. The grand majority of ones I know are generally tolerant people and they don't really care what your religion is. Sure, it may be harder to be elected into a government office, but that's really the only point of yours I really agree on.
#508 - simplescience (02/28/2013) [-]
Well, based on the fact that I have a number of people here agreeing with me and the number of thumbs I received, then it seems that even going off of this small pool of information, the facts lean in my direction.

If my statement were over-exaggerating, don't you think the users here (that are ready to pounce on anything incorrect like a lion ready to pounce on its next meal) would have called me out on it before you? My post was up for 5 hours before you responded, and gained plenty of thumbs in that time. If it was over-exaggerating, I do believe more people would have said so.

Does this comment thread speak for everyone? Of course not. However, it does seem to lean more in my direction than in yours.
User avatar #509 - blacknbluebrony (02/28/2013) [-]
So we're deciding this based on Funnyjunk users, many of whom are bipolar to the point that they blatantly speak about how religion is such an awful thing one day, then preach about how atheists shove their beliefs down people's throats and how religion is a good thing the next. Your statements are no more supported than mine.
User avatar #514 - simplescience (03/01/2013) [-]
First off, you assume all funnyjunk users are morons (you don't state it directly, but it is obviously implied), which is really mean of you. If you read just some of the conversations I've had below, that alone proves that your claim is incorrect, as it has been seen that plenty of funnyjunk users are intelligent enough to think for themselves.

Second, if what you claim about funnyjunk users being "bipolar" was true, then it stands to reason I would have had many more complaints to my comment. The chance that everybody's "bipolar" tendencies are perfectly in sync with one another is practically zero. Case in point, you displayed the "characteristics" you defined in your statement, meaning that not all of funnyjunk users think the same, meaning that I should have had more strong dissenters besides you. I did not, so therefore, your statement is nothing more than a farce, and is invalid.

You backed yourself into a corner. If your bipolar statement is not allowed to stand, then all you're doing is basically saying that the evidence doesn't lean in my direction just because you don't like the it. Even if your bipolar statement is allowed to stand, I've already proven it to be invalid.

I'm not done yet.

Third, you're making a strawman argument in response to my claim. I have evidence on this comment thread that I can point to, and logical reasoning to back it up. Your counter-argument is attacking the evidence presented by basically saying "that evidence doesn't count", with no further proof of backing it up other than your mass generalization.

Based on these points, my presented evidence is still allowed to stand because I have provided evidence, and you have not satisfactorily dismissed it. Therefore, your comment claiming of our statements being of equal merit is rendered invalid, and by extension, your statement of over-exaggeration is also rendered invalid unless you can bring a real argument to the table.

The burden of proof is on you.
#515 - blacknbluebrony (03/01/2013) [-]
I never even claimed that all the users on this site are morons, you're just assuming that. All I said what that they are bipolar to the point where you'll see posts hating on a certain topic one day, and the next day it will be the complete obvious. As in the site as a whole has a bipolar tendency, not every single user.

You've basically gone against my claims by stating that I needed physical proof , that you were correct based off of the fact that maybe a few users on this site agree with you, and that you were just using "common sense". I'm speaking from what I assumed was common sense and my own past experience, put you claimed these as irrelevant, but the same can be said about your own argument. Like I said, you claim I lack evidence when you're the one basing your whole argument on a rather infinitesimal portion of a website for funny pictures, you're claim of using logical reasoning (which is a very abstract subject), but you really have no other supporting points besides that. So of course I dismissed your evidence as nearly irrelevant.

Now back on subject. You claim that any atheistic or agnostic person is oppressed in society, and I only disagreed. Now, unless you live in some deep south, strongly conservative town, generally almost every Christian I can think of are tolerant to the beliefs of others unless you try to shove yours down their throats -which seems to happen A LOT on here.

Religious people run the world? In a way yes, mainly because they are the majority, so of course the majority of leaders are religious. But they're certainly not oppressed from being able to achieve in life. Although there aren't many non-religious people who hold public offices in the US, it is quite common in many other countries. Plus a large percentage of scientists and other related professions are atheistic as well. So the non-religious are being oppressed and treated as outcasts? Hardly.

#519 - simplescience (03/01/2013) [-]
As I said in my statement, you didn't claim it, but you heavily implied it. By saying that they are bipolar and constantly changing their opinions/hopping on a bandwagon, you're implying that a majority of the users here are too stupid to think for themselves and will instead just follow whatever appears to be the popular opinion. So, yeah, you didn't say exactly that the people of the site are dumb, but you made quite the heavy implication from it.

Furthermore, you assume that just because a piece of content makes it to the front page, that automatically means that the entire site agrees with it being there. You also assume that it's always the same people thumbing up the differing content which gets it to the front page and noticed, that it's the same people who make the comments that agree with religious posts and then turn around and agree with atheists posts. By saying "the site as a whole", that means you're including every user who uses the site. if you make any exclusions, then its not the site as a whole, just part of it.

You claim they are hardly oppressed and treated as outcasts, that my whole argument is based on the comments section of my original comment. The comment favoring my side is only the tip of the iceberg, as I'm about to show you. You want evidence? I've got plenty:

First: tinyurl.com/mnljwa
Second: tinyurl.com/37683
Third: tinyurl.com/akvssv9
Fourth: tinyurl.com/b4m6jxv
Fifth: tinyurl.com/5q4oj
Sixth: tinyurl.com/bjzxxcv
Seventh: tinyurl.com/axa27g6
Eighth: tinyurl.com/bbl937t
Ninth: tinyurl.com/r4jncj
Tenth: tinyurl.com/cfo34ca

Read all these and then try to justify your position that atheists "hardly" face oppression or are treated as outcasts. Don't be shy about asking for more either, there's plenty where those came from.
#416 - An interesting comparison (not troll ing, I mean it). However…  [+] (2 new replies) 02/28/2013 on religion, bitches. 0
User avatar #454 - drtrousersnake (02/28/2013) [-]
Atheism comes from "a" meaning without and theos meaning god. As I define earlier, religion is a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe. Saying that there can't be an atheist religion is the same as saying that unless you believe in god, you have no beliefs on the origin (cause) of the universe or the how it works (nature).
#473 - simplescience (02/28/2013) [-]
I challenge your notion that there is such a thing as an atheist religion. Saying there can be an atheist religion is like saying there is such a thing as a triangle with five points. Obviously, I will defend myself (Also I am letting you know. It's really late so I have to go to bed soon (Class at 8:30. It's 1.45). I plan on replying, but it won't be until much later).

First, while I won't deny where the word atheist got its start, it, much like way of thinking it represents, has changed over time, and now means more than just "without god". However, that's not the meat of my argument here.

Religion is, as you say, a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe. Atheism, which uses science to explain the world around it, is not a religion because it is not a system of beliefs. It is a system of proven methods to explain the world around us, it is not a belief. A belief means to have faith without having a logical reason for said faith.

Science does have logical reason to be followed, because its results can be replicated. As I said in an earlier comment, I don't have to believe in science for it to be true. I don't have to believe that electrical currents travelling through circuit is what makes light bulbs illuminate my room. It will be true whether I believe in it or not.

There cannot be an atheist religion if atheism, which is rooted in science and therefore has logical reason to be followed because of the fact that its results can be replicated and seen by the human eye, and religion is belief that requires faith with no logical reason to back it up, and can't be replicated so that they can be observed.

What are your thoughts on this?
#371 - (I apologize in advance if I am addressing the wrong thing. Th…  [+] (11 new replies) 02/28/2013 on religion, bitches. 0
#411 - strikeoflightning (02/28/2013) [-]
I meant thoughts on my entire comments. I agree with you completely, but I have one remark:

I don't know if your "strike me with lightning" comment was on purpose, but if not, you are my new best friend. If you don't understand, check my username.
#443 - simplescience (02/28/2013) [-]
First off, I thought I'd see if you were reading through my comments, so I tossed that one in there. :P

Continuing on, I'll provide my thoughts as much as the character count will allow me. I do think that when it comes to both the theists and the atheists, it seems like only the radical ones of each side get time in the spotlight. I haven't heard too much about the atheists that change religion often. The ones I hear most about are the ones that are overly cocky, and refuse to listen to a theists perspective.

The reason I think that a passive believer such as yourself or an passive atheist such as myself don't get the spotlight very often is not due to not having significant effect. I think it's a more physical reason than that. We hear about Westboro and more arrogant atheists because their actions are far more brazen and controversial. Doing things that challenges the norms of society in such a manner is what gets you noticed. Since you and I are passive, we are not really pushing the envelope, so to speak. We are not attempting to rile the public, and we are not so firmly entrenched in what we think that we do not listen to outsiders, and so, to put it bluntly, we're boring, and those that go with the flow don't make waves. Does that mean our opinions are worth less? No. It just means that people notice something extraordinary before something perceived as ordinary.

Unfortunately, because these people are all we see, both theists and atheists are put seen in a negative fashion by the other side. That's why it's my opinion that instead of yelling at the other side for ruining the image of one side, both theists and atheists that aren't them should set out and prove through action, that they are not all the stereotypes the other side has heard about.

Content like this is also just a way of reinforcing the stereotypes of one side, atheists in this case. It doesn't help to disprove the notion that all atheists are cocky assholes, and ends up being detrimental.
#449 - strikeoflightning (02/28/2013) [-]
I have to say, I enjoy conversing with you. If I weren't in the middle of writing a research paper, I would be much more involved.

While I agree with the fact that we hear more of the radicals because they're outside of the average attitude of society, I have to disagree and say that our opinions, as passive theists/atheists, are worth less. We are part of a group with beliefs that are not controversial. If I tell you "Humans breathe air," you will agree and we will move on because there is nothing to disagree or argue. However, if I tell you "I wish humans could breathe underwater," there is something to argue so a conversation could ensue. There's an agreement or disagreement to be had because there is more than one side to the topic.

If I tell you "I am Christian, but I don't care what other people believe," the general response is appreciation. Nobody is going to scold me for doing exactly what I'm supposed to do as a Christian and not harming anybody. However, if I say "I am Christian, and you should be too," you could disagree and then conversations on belief begin.

Because controversy and conversation cannot ignite from passive thoughts such as ours, they become unimportant to society as opinions.
#461 - simplescience (02/28/2013) [-]
While I do agree with your reasoning as to how our views are seen, I have to challenge your view of them being less important, and (if you haven't guessed by now) I'll tell you why.

First off, I'd like to point to your "I wish humans could breathe air" statement. That view is not exactly controversial, but actually imaginative and leaves itself open to interesting speculation as to how it might be different if that's how humans breathed air. A controversial statement would be "Humans don't actually breathe air. We actually breathe by involuntarily conducting photosynthesis".

Getting to my actual reasoning as to my challenge, a view that is seen as not against the norms does not mean either it or the person who believes it is valued any less or seen as insignificant, belief-wise because if those views were as you claim they were, then by eliminating them, the controversial views would become the dominant view, and would run unopposed. I'll give you an example to show you what I mean:

Say there was a person claiming that humans actually conducted photosynthesis. By the logic you're stating, if someone went up and directly challenged the controversial view with the accepted view society has, that we breathe air, their opinion would be pushed to the side. Let's go one more step and say this person was posted on Funnyjunk. If the accepted view were seen as less valuable and unimportant to society, then those who would state that humans actually breathe air would be criticized for believing that view.

That's rarely the case when someone with a controversial view makes it into the spotlight. Depending on the severity of the controversy caused, that person will usually be ignored or ridiculed, and the accepted norm will continue to stand.

To put it bluntly, I think that more passive views aren't heard of as much because they aren't money makers. They don't draw attention. However, that does not mean their importance or worth is any less.
#510 - strikeoflightning (02/28/2013) [-]
I understand your reasoning. Your thoughts make perfect sense, but I believe we've reached a misunderstanding.

See, I don't mean they're less significant because they're pushed aside. I mean that, because they're so normal and widely accepted, they don't need people constantly defending them.

Using your example, if someone says that we conduct involuntary photosynthesis, one of two things will happen: someone will say that it's an interesting way to look at it, or someone will think they're wrong or will disagree because we obviously require an oxygen intake rather than one of carbon dioxide and will either argue or let it the person think what they'd like.

In this analogy, you and I would simply let the person think what they'd like. If we do that, our opinions matter less because they aren't publicly challenging what is being stated. Because we don't bluntly state our opinion, our opinion is seen as weak, because we don't try to spread it as fact and therefore, according to society, we are unsure about them. Someone who would call the person out on their misinterpretation of the respiratory system would be the one with the recognized opinion. Even if we have the same opinion, ours have no strength behind it.
#516 - simplescience (03/01/2013) [-]
You're implying (I think) that nothing can be gained from focusing on someone with a passive opinion that goes along with the majority since there is an abundance of those views already. I strongly disagree with that assessment on the grounds a passive opinion to the accepted view does not automatically mean being passive or nonchalant about the entire topic.

It is entirely possible to go along with the majority and have a passive opinion with the main point but have a differing view as to how your belief works, or have a different way of reaching what the majority view is. Furthermore, you could go along with the main view, but disagree with bits and pieces about it. It's input of those that are passive which drives much of our world.

Think of it this way: What if the only feedback a company got was assertive views of both sides when asking for how an aspect could be improved. The company would be at a loss in determining what it should actually do. The opinions of a passive person could be seen as "This person seems to like the way things are, but doesn't denounce change. Perhaps we should consider keeping things the same for now, but leave the door open for improvements". In choosing such an option, it could result in helping to boost happiness of both sides who may have been more assertive since they each got something they wanted, and could be better for a company whose still unsure about making changes at the time. Yet, that decided action didn't come from one who strongly asserted their side. It came from a passive thinker.
#518 - strikeoflightning (03/01/2013) [-]
I think you've got me beat at this point. I don't have a rebuttal for that because I see no flaws in your argument.

I have to say, you're the most intellectual person I've ever had the pleasure to debate with, and you definitely know your way around the English language. I'm glad to have had this opportunity.
#520 - simplescience (03/01/2013) [-]
I thank you very much for such a kind compliment. I would like to share my opinion of you as well.

You are someone I'm glad to have conversed with, especially because throughout our discourse, you did not sink to calling me names or trying to start a ragefest, or dismiss what I said for an arbitrary reason. You continued to converse with me even though our views are different, and when I misunderstood, you instead told me what you meant instead of calling me names. Such a conversational partner seems to not come along very often, and I'm honestly glad that we had this discourse. If you ever are really bored and check through other comments I've made, you'll find I love to have debates, as I believe they keep the mind sharp.

I would like to also return the compliment in regards to mastery of the English language. It was always fun to read your replies because you went beyond normal expressions to get your point home.

Perhaps we'll have another discussion sometime?

(MFW your generous compliments:
<--
#521 - strikeoflightning (03/01/2013) [-]
I find an angry debate the least useful. It isn't truly a debate if there is no swaying of opinion being had. There's no reason to get angry because you didn't downsize my opinion a single time; you simply stated your own and gave your own supporting details. People are too sensitive to words nowadays. People believe that because they get offended, something should be done about the offense.

I'm always open to a friendly debate about any topic I have knowledge on. If I'm ignorant on the topic, then it's more of a lesson than a debate. Feel free to PM me or comment on my profile at any time; there's never a time that I'm not willing to socialize. Even in the worst of moods, the only cure to irritability is letting yourself be in your normal environment -- which happens to be socialization in my case.

Thank you for your compliment. While I'm not disagreeing, I fail to see any abnormal expressions that I've said. Although, if I said them, they must be normal to me. It's also a possibility that I'm saying expressions incorrectly; I'm not a native English speaker.

I'll do the honors of sending you a friend request.
User avatar #522 - simplescience (03/01/2013) [-]
Not a native English speaker? You truly could have fooled me (not sarcasm). I never would have guessed.

As for me, my English usage comes from my parents. They have an extensive vocabulary and love reading, and as a result, they're great at using the language. They bestowed such wisdom on me, and I just ran with it. For that I am grateful.

As for abnormal expressions, what I meant is that you found ways to reword your statements if I misunderstood or if they were unclear, making it easier for me to reply. What made it more impressive is that, in my opinion, these weren't light topics, yet you were able to rephrase them (what seemed like from my perspective) effortlessly. That's amazing.

Friend request accepted. :)
#523 - strikeoflightning (03/01/2013) [-]
I am born in France. I live in the United States now, but my first language is French.

That's always great. I get most of my syntax and diction from fights with my ex-girlfriend, honestly. I've found that the only way to calm a raging bull is to be calmer than the bull before the rage.

Well, thank you! I'm glad to be able to clarify what I'm trying to say without sounding like a bumbling buffoon. You seem to effortlessly throw your sentences together as well, and even with complex sentence structure, your sentences are easy to follow.
#340 - If I'm understanding you right (and I want to make this clear:…  [+] (4 new replies) 02/28/2013 on religion, bitches. 0
User avatar #373 - drtrousersnake (02/28/2013) [-]
The scientific method is a way to find a perspectives on how the world works.
Religion is "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe".

As for atheism, atheism is not a religion but a subset of the many religions people can have. In terms of deities, you could be either theist or atheist. If you are a theist you could be polytheist or a monotheist. If you are a monotheist you could be a Jew, Muslim, deist, Pastafarian, etc. From the little I've read about Scientology, it could be considered a form of atheism or polytheism depending on how you look at it. According to Scientology "people are immortal beings who have forgotten their true nature". On one hand, if everyone is divine, you could say that everyone could be considered a god and Scientology is a polytheistic religion. On the other hand, because there is no higher deity than a person, you could say Scientology is an atheist religion.
#416 - simplescience (02/28/2013) [-]
An interesting comparison (not trolling, I mean it). However, by your own definitions, science is not a religion.

Your definitions say that the scientific method is a way to find a perspective on how the world works, but religion is a set of beliefs on how the world works (I know its not exact, but you know what I mean). In that sense, science seeks to find how the world works, while religion states that it believes it already knows how the universe works. This goes back to what I said in comment #240 in that religion is stagnant, whereas science is not. I don't think by this point in our conversation, I need to state examples of the latter.

Science is not a belief in the sense that it is true just because someone says it is true. Science differs from religion in that regard in the sense that what science says is true can be replicated, and I can find the answers in textbooks. However, it's not exactly clear how I can ask a divine being (or beings) for answers. Yes, science does have some degree of belief, but that belief is backed up by evidence we can see. Religious belief is to believe in something without having a definitive method of proving it (I'm running out of character count, or else I'd go into a bit more detail here).

Onto the rest of your statement, I would argue that Scientology is not an atheist religion, because that's an oxymoron. In addition, atheists do not believe in a divinity of any kind, so therefore Scientology cannot be an atheist religion on the grounds that atheists believe that we are nothing more than organic life forms with a limited lifespan that have no "forgotten past" or things of the like. The human brain has been mapped and nothing of the sort has been found. Furthermore, if one makes the claim that this "forgotten knowledge" is immeasurable or exists outside of nature, then it's an unfalsifiable hypothesis, and therefore is in the same boat as the existence of God, and is therefore rejected by the atheist.
User avatar #454 - drtrousersnake (02/28/2013) [-]
Atheism comes from "a" meaning without and theos meaning god. As I define earlier, religion is a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe. Saying that there can't be an atheist religion is the same as saying that unless you believe in god, you have no beliefs on the origin (cause) of the universe or the how it works (nature).
#473 - simplescience (02/28/2013) [-]
I challenge your notion that there is such a thing as an atheist religion. Saying there can be an atheist religion is like saying there is such a thing as a triangle with five points. Obviously, I will defend myself (Also I am letting you know. It's really late so I have to go to bed soon (Class at 8:30. It's 1.45). I plan on replying, but it won't be until much later).

First, while I won't deny where the word atheist got its start, it, much like way of thinking it represents, has changed over time, and now means more than just "without god". However, that's not the meat of my argument here.

Religion is, as you say, a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe. Atheism, which uses science to explain the world around it, is not a religion because it is not a system of beliefs. It is a system of proven methods to explain the world around us, it is not a belief. A belief means to have faith without having a logical reason for said faith.

Science does have logical reason to be followed, because its results can be replicated. As I said in an earlier comment, I don't have to believe in science for it to be true. I don't have to believe that electrical currents travelling through circuit is what makes light bulbs illuminate my room. It will be true whether I believe in it or not.

There cannot be an atheist religion if atheism, which is rooted in science and therefore has logical reason to be followed because of the fact that its results can be replicated and seen by the human eye, and religion is belief that requires faith with no logical reason to back it up, and can't be replicated so that they can be observed.

What are your thoughts on this?
#314 - I won't deny what you say about most Atheists. I've seen them … 02/28/2013 on religion, bitches. +2
#308 - Before I begin my reponse, I want to preface it with a this: …  [+] (6 new replies) 02/28/2013 on religion, bitches. +1
User avatar #327 - drtrousersnake (02/28/2013) [-]
All the test that you proposed to prove something only work with prior knowledge. The main point that I was trying to make is that both are supported by a circular argument. The only thing that truly supports science is science and the only thing that truly supports faith is faith. Each scientific theory is supported by an experiment given that another concept is true. That concept is supported by an experiment given another concept is true. Eventually you will get to a concept that is supported only by it being commonly accepted as true. If the concept that is supported only by it being commonly accepted as true is a magic sky daddy that created the universe, you have a religion.
#340 - simplescience (02/28/2013) [-]
If I'm understanding you right (and I want to make this clear: Do not hesitate to tell me if I'm perceiving the wrong message), you're basically saying that atheism is, in and of itself, a religion. You're reasoning for this is that any recorded experiment goes off of prior knowledge, and this eventually keeps going backwards until you reach a point where a piece of prior knowledge has no (perceived) scientific basis, and is based solely on faith.

To put it in a shorter way, you're saying that all of what science perceives to be true is based of what is seen as base facts that have their roots in a perceived belief of the way the world works, and that's what makes Atheism a religion (like I said, if I'm wrong, please correct me. I'm here to learn (and make a good name for Atheists), not to condescend).

While that is a fascinating line of thinking that I will dwell on, I'm not entirely sure that train of thought could put Atheism under a religion. Of course, I will back up my claim.

First off, while it may have been faith of perceived facts that were the basis of what we know today to be science, those facts have been made obsolete because science seeks to improve what it finds to be incorrect. Although it may a system only used on earth, the methods science has created to study the world around us have proven effective thus far.

What seperates science from normal religion even further is that science continues to progress and move forward, seeking to learn more. Religion does not do this, and it is content to stay where it is for long periods of time, only changing if it absolutely has to, and even then, it is only done begrudgingly. Science is willing to show how it got its results, instead of saying "because I said so".

Whether or not I believe in science does not make what science proves any less true or valid. Light will reflect off of surfaces whether I believe it or not. Water will turn to ice at low temperatures, whether I believe it or not.
User avatar #373 - drtrousersnake (02/28/2013) [-]
The scientific method is a way to find a perspectives on how the world works.
Religion is "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe".

As for atheism, atheism is not a religion but a subset of the many religions people can have. In terms of deities, you could be either theist or atheist. If you are a theist you could be polytheist or a monotheist. If you are a monotheist you could be a Jew, Muslim, deist, Pastafarian, etc. From the little I've read about Scientology, it could be considered a form of atheism or polytheism depending on how you look at it. According to Scientology "people are immortal beings who have forgotten their true nature". On one hand, if everyone is divine, you could say that everyone could be considered a god and Scientology is a polytheistic religion. On the other hand, because there is no higher deity than a person, you could say Scientology is an atheist religion.
#416 - simplescience (02/28/2013) [-]
An interesting comparison (not trolling, I mean it). However, by your own definitions, science is not a religion.

Your definitions say that the scientific method is a way to find a perspective on how the world works, but religion is a set of beliefs on how the world works (I know its not exact, but you know what I mean). In that sense, science seeks to find how the world works, while religion states that it believes it already knows how the universe works. This goes back to what I said in comment #240 in that religion is stagnant, whereas science is not. I don't think by this point in our conversation, I need to state examples of the latter.

Science is not a belief in the sense that it is true just because someone says it is true. Science differs from religion in that regard in the sense that what science says is true can be replicated, and I can find the answers in textbooks. However, it's not exactly clear how I can ask a divine being (or beings) for answers. Yes, science does have some degree of belief, but that belief is backed up by evidence we can see. Religious belief is to believe in something without having a definitive method of proving it (I'm running out of character count, or else I'd go into a bit more detail here).

Onto the rest of your statement, I would argue that Scientology is not an atheist religion, because that's an oxymoron. In addition, atheists do not believe in a divinity of any kind, so therefore Scientology cannot be an atheist religion on the grounds that atheists believe that we are nothing more than organic life forms with a limited lifespan that have no "forgotten past" or things of the like. The human brain has been mapped and nothing of the sort has been found. Furthermore, if one makes the claim that this "forgotten knowledge" is immeasurable or exists outside of nature, then it's an unfalsifiable hypothesis, and therefore is in the same boat as the existence of God, and is therefore rejected by the atheist.
User avatar #454 - drtrousersnake (02/28/2013) [-]
Atheism comes from "a" meaning without and theos meaning god. As I define earlier, religion is a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe. Saying that there can't be an atheist religion is the same as saying that unless you believe in god, you have no beliefs on the origin (cause) of the universe or the how it works (nature).
#473 - simplescience (02/28/2013) [-]
I challenge your notion that there is such a thing as an atheist religion. Saying there can be an atheist religion is like saying there is such a thing as a triangle with five points. Obviously, I will defend myself (Also I am letting you know. It's really late so I have to go to bed soon (Class at 8:30. It's 1.45). I plan on replying, but it won't be until much later).

First, while I won't deny where the word atheist got its start, it, much like way of thinking it represents, has changed over time, and now means more than just "without god". However, that's not the meat of my argument here.

Religion is, as you say, a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe. Atheism, which uses science to explain the world around it, is not a religion because it is not a system of beliefs. It is a system of proven methods to explain the world around us, it is not a belief. A belief means to have faith without having a logical reason for said faith.

Science does have logical reason to be followed, because its results can be replicated. As I said in an earlier comment, I don't have to believe in science for it to be true. I don't have to believe that electrical currents travelling through circuit is what makes light bulbs illuminate my room. It will be true whether I believe in it or not.

There cannot be an atheist religion if atheism, which is rooted in science and therefore has logical reason to be followed because of the fact that its results can be replicated and seen by the human eye, and religion is belief that requires faith with no logical reason to back it up, and can't be replicated so that they can be observed.

What are your thoughts on this?
#300 - Yeeaah see... No, what you said is not like what I said. … 02/28/2013 on religion, bitches. 0
#76 - None of the movies released thus far are canon as far as I kno…  [+] (2 new replies) 02/28/2013 on Draggin Ballz 0
User avatar #88 - andyyy (02/28/2013) [-]
It's Canon
User avatar #78 - picklous (02/28/2013) [-]
do you know if they will sub/dub it?
#12 - I'm surprised a feminist hasn't complained about your comment yet. 02/28/2013 on Me Too +2
#26 - And what could be better than serving up smiles?  [+] (1 new reply) 02/28/2013 on show us yer happy face. +2
#28 - savirleo (02/28/2013) [-]
#264 - I'm not saying Christians are bad. Who I am calling bad are th…  [+] (1 new reply) 02/28/2013 on Too great +1
User avatar #366 - dangitbobby (02/28/2013) [-]
Agreed. And the parts that do condemn homosexuality, namely the passage in Leviticus (I forget the verse numbers) only apply to Hebrew priests of that time period. You'd have to do some deeper reading to see that, but most Christians that use this passage are too ignorant to do so. Jesus doesn't mention homosexuality at all, so I don't know where all the Christians think their arguments against homosexuality have any credibility beyond ignorance.
#177 - If I may, I'd like to take a moment to speak in defense of the…  [+] (58 new replies) 02/28/2013 on religion, bitches. +37
User avatar #459 - ainoninom (02/28/2013) [-]
sheeit, In new zealand you get funny looks when people funny looks when people find out you're a christian.. but two seconds later no-one gives two shits.
User avatar #448 - localcatbarber (02/28/2013) [-]
Yeah, I see how being an atheist in america must suck. In Norway, or at least in my social circle, only about 10% belong to a church/organized religious group, so they become the outcasts. I'm agnostic, so I sort of avoid the fire on both sides, I guess.
#398 - psychrophile (02/28/2013) [-]
Eh, I'm a PhD student studying evolutionary biology. I fit in pretty well as an atheist.
User avatar #394 - blacknbluebrony (02/28/2013) [-]
Really? I think you're over-exaggerating quite a bit here. I used to be an atheist, not so much anymore, but I was never once ridiculed over it. My parents, siblings, and friends were perfectly ok with it, nobody at school seemed to care, and it didn't effect my social life in the least. So unless you live in a hardcore Chrisitian community and you're not shoving it down people's throats, I don't see how it can really effect how you go about your day.
#439 - simplescience (02/28/2013) [-]
Of course it would be dumb to say that there are no exceptions to a rule, and what I posted is no exception. In my post I said that it's not very easy, not impossible. In addition, you don't have to live in a hardcore religious community for any of this to happen. I can't say your experience was wrong, but I will say that it's a weak way to back up your claim, and I'll tell you why.

It's not exactly fair to point to an exception to the rule and based on that one exception, assert that an entire data set is wrong. There will always be people who are exceptions to stated views of the world, but just because they are an exception does not mean the norm itself is wrong. Especially since, as I said previously, I didn't say it was impossible, just not very easy. I could just as easily say that where I lived, it wasn't a heavily Christian community, and I would get weird looks if I didn't say I was Christian. In that scenario, its just personal experience and really holds no merit since our claims cancel each other out.

Do you happen to have some more solid evidence for your claim?
User avatar #490 - blacknbluebrony (02/28/2013) [-]
I don't see how anyone could back up their point on anything like this over the Internet nor do I know of any sort of physical proof or data I can show you to prove my claim. You're saying that atheists are often treated as social outcasts and are ridiculed for their beliefs, and I disagree based off of my past experience. Just because someone is Christian, doesn't mean that they'll try to "save you" or try to convert you if your an atheist. The grand majority of ones I know are generally tolerant people and they don't really care what your religion is. Sure, it may be harder to be elected into a government office, but that's really the only point of yours I really agree on.
#508 - simplescience (02/28/2013) [-]
Well, based on the fact that I have a number of people here agreeing with me and the number of thumbs I received, then it seems that even going off of this small pool of information, the facts lean in my direction.

If my statement were over-exaggerating, don't you think the users here (that are ready to pounce on anything incorrect like a lion ready to pounce on its next meal) would have called me out on it before you? My post was up for 5 hours before you responded, and gained plenty of thumbs in that time. If it was over-exaggerating, I do believe more people would have said so.

Does this comment thread speak for everyone? Of course not. However, it does seem to lean more in my direction than in yours.
User avatar #509 - blacknbluebrony (02/28/2013) [-]
So we're deciding this based on Funnyjunk users, many of whom are bipolar to the point that they blatantly speak about how religion is such an awful thing one day, then preach about how atheists shove their beliefs down people's throats and how religion is a good thing the next. Your statements are no more supported than mine.
User avatar #514 - simplescience (03/01/2013) [-]
First off, you assume all funnyjunk users are morons (you don't state it directly, but it is obviously implied), which is really mean of you. If you read just some of the conversations I've had below, that alone proves that your claim is incorrect, as it has been seen that plenty of funnyjunk users are intelligent enough to think for themselves.

Second, if what you claim about funnyjunk users being "bipolar" was true, then it stands to reason I would have had many more complaints to my comment. The chance that everybody's "bipolar" tendencies are perfectly in sync with one another is practically zero. Case in point, you displayed the "characteristics" you defined in your statement, meaning that not all of funnyjunk users think the same, meaning that I should have had more strong dissenters besides you. I did not, so therefore, your statement is nothing more than a farce, and is invalid.

You backed yourself into a corner. If your bipolar statement is not allowed to stand, then all you're doing is basically saying that the evidence doesn't lean in my direction just because you don't like the it. Even if your bipolar statement is allowed to stand, I've already proven it to be invalid.

I'm not done yet.

Third, you're making a strawman argument in response to my claim. I have evidence on this comment thread that I can point to, and logical reasoning to back it up. Your counter-argument is attacking the evidence presented by basically saying "that evidence doesn't count", with no further proof of backing it up other than your mass generalization.

Based on these points, my presented evidence is still allowed to stand because I have provided evidence, and you have not satisfactorily dismissed it. Therefore, your comment claiming of our statements being of equal merit is rendered invalid, and by extension, your statement of over-exaggeration is also rendered invalid unless you can bring a real argument to the table.

The burden of proof is on you.
#515 - blacknbluebrony (03/01/2013) [-]
I never even claimed that all the users on this site are morons, you're just assuming that. All I said what that they are bipolar to the point where you'll see posts hating on a certain topic one day, and the next day it will be the complete obvious. As in the site as a whole has a bipolar tendency, not every single user.

You've basically gone against my claims by stating that I needed physical proof , that you were correct based off of the fact that maybe a few users on this site agree with you, and that you were just using "common sense". I'm speaking from what I assumed was common sense and my own past experience, put you claimed these as irrelevant, but the same can be said about your own argument. Like I said, you claim I lack evidence when you're the one basing your whole argument on a rather infinitesimal portion of a website for funny pictures, you're claim of using logical reasoning (which is a very abstract subject), but you really have no other supporting points besides that. So of course I dismissed your evidence as nearly irrelevant.

Now back on subject. You claim that any atheistic or agnostic person is oppressed in society, and I only disagreed. Now, unless you live in some deep south, strongly conservative town, generally almost every Christian I can think of are tolerant to the beliefs of others unless you try to shove yours down their throats -which seems to happen A LOT on here.

Religious people run the world? In a way yes, mainly because they are the majority, so of course the majority of leaders are religious. But they're certainly not oppressed from being able to achieve in life. Although there aren't many non-religious people who hold public offices in the US, it is quite common in many other countries. Plus a large percentage of scientists and other related professions are atheistic as well. So the non-religious are being oppressed and treated as outcasts? Hardly.

#519 - simplescience (03/01/2013) [-]
As I said in my statement, you didn't claim it, but you heavily implied it. By saying that they are bipolar and constantly changing their opinions/hopping on a bandwagon, you're implying that a majority of the users here are too stupid to think for themselves and will instead just follow whatever appears to be the popular opinion. So, yeah, you didn't say exactly that the people of the site are dumb, but you made quite the heavy implication from it.

Furthermore, you assume that just because a piece of content makes it to the front page, that automatically means that the entire site agrees with it being there. You also assume that it's always the same people thumbing up the differing content which gets it to the front page and noticed, that it's the same people who make the comments that agree with religious posts and then turn around and agree with atheists posts. By saying "the site as a whole", that means you're including every user who uses the site. if you make any exclusions, then its not the site as a whole, just part of it.

You claim they are hardly oppressed and treated as outcasts, that my whole argument is based on the comments section of my original comment. The comment favoring my side is only the tip of the iceberg, as I'm about to show you. You want evidence? I've got plenty:

First: tinyurl.com/mnljwa
Second: tinyurl.com/37683
Third: tinyurl.com/akvssv9
Fourth: tinyurl.com/b4m6jxv
Fifth: tinyurl.com/5q4oj
Sixth: tinyurl.com/bjzxxcv
Seventh: tinyurl.com/axa27g6
Eighth: tinyurl.com/bbl937t
Ninth: tinyurl.com/r4jncj
Tenth: tinyurl.com/cfo34ca

Read all these and then try to justify your position that atheists "hardly" face oppression or are treated as outcasts. Don't be shy about asking for more either, there's plenty where those came from.
#372 - fedexman (02/28/2013) [-]
Shit storm a brewin
#339 - strikeoflightning (02/28/2013) [-]
With a viewpoint like this, I agree. I have no problem with a passive Atheist that doesn't believe in religion and it ends there. However, those aren't the atheists you hear about. It's said that Atheists are generally "jerks" or whatever they're called, because the Atheists you hear about are the ones that are constantly challenging religion. Same with religious people, though. I, myself, am Christian. However, I don't care what other people are so I don't even have the "who's right and who's wrong" conversations. However, you'll hear of WBP Church, and see that those "Christians" are assholes. You're hear about other ones that are extremists and find them absurd and arrogant. However, you won't hear of my beliefs and how I am a passive believer because I have no significant effect. Atheists that purposely reject "Bless you"s after a sneeze with "I don't believe in God" or that scold people for saying "Oh my God" are the kind of Atheists that are recognized as Atheists and therefore soil the name. Things like this content, while it may be made with good intentions, can be found offensive. It's a challenge on religion, and it's obviously there to call religion out. It's unnecessary. This site is, in my opinion, mostly Atheist or passive religious. These kinds of content are just there to make all the Atheists have a chance to point fingers and laugh. Don't get me wrong, it's clever and rather funny, but it's not necessary. Random challenges to religion is what makes people find Atheists so ballsy. Thoughts?
#371 - simplescience (02/28/2013) [-]
(I apologize in advance if I am addressing the wrong thing. This message is going off the assumption you are asking for my thoughts on this content. Furthermore, I apologize for taking awhile to reply. It took me awhile to word this post the way I wanted)

It is content like this, in my opinion, that makes stereotypical atheists seem like their "superior grasp of logic" (note the quotations) makes religion look like a big joke. Since the content is in favor of atheism, it will be the dominant theme of the comments, which leads me to my next thought.

Another thing I think can be seen by this content and the resulting comments is the mockery the religious get if they cannot immediately refute an atheist. If the theist does not satisfactorily refute the atheists claims, then instead of backing off, the stereotypical atheist will obnoxiously point and laugh at the theist. I think that's a key event that gives atheists their smug reputation.

I think in addition to making atheists seem ballsy, it also gives the impression that Atheists are no better than the extremists they claim to condemn. How? This content gives the implication of "If you look at religion this way, then you'll see that religion is dumb and makes no sense, and you're an idiot if you're a theist". and then you'll hear of the really dumb "challenges" like "If God exists, he should strike me with lightning".

I find it annoying that posts challenging religion do so in a really obnoxious way. Like I said in the above paragraph, it gives the implication that not only should religion be viewed as dumb, but also, by extension, there is no good that can come of believing in it, and that is simply not true.

While I do think that Atheists should express their beliefs, doing so by obnoxiously mocking (as seen in the content) isn't going to make anyone think better of atheists. Furthermore, I think that if a stereotypical atheist is going to dish it out, they better be ready to take it as well.
#411 - strikeoflightning (02/28/2013) [-]
I meant thoughts on my entire comments. I agree with you completely, but I have one remark:

I don't know if your "strike me with lightning" comment was on purpose, but if not, you are my new best friend. If you don't understand, check my username.
#443 - simplescience (02/28/2013) [-]
First off, I thought I'd see if you were reading through my comments, so I tossed that one in there. :P

Continuing on, I'll provide my thoughts as much as the character count will allow me. I do think that when it comes to both the theists and the atheists, it seems like only the radical ones of each side get time in the spotlight. I haven't heard too much about the atheists that change religion often. The ones I hear most about are the ones that are overly cocky, and refuse to listen to a theists perspective.

The reason I think that a passive believer such as yourself or an passive atheist such as myself don't get the spotlight very often is not due to not having significant effect. I think it's a more physical reason than that. We hear about Westboro and more arrogant atheists because their actions are far more brazen and controversial. Doing things that challenges the norms of society in such a manner is what gets you noticed. Since you and I are passive, we are not really pushing the envelope, so to speak. We are not attempting to rile the public, and we are not so firmly entrenched in what we think that we do not listen to outsiders, and so, to put it bluntly, we're boring, and those that go with the flow don't make waves. Does that mean our opinions are worth less? No. It just means that people notice something extraordinary before something perceived as ordinary.

Unfortunately, because these people are all we see, both theists and atheists are put seen in a negative fashion by the other side. That's why it's my opinion that instead of yelling at the other side for ruining the image of one side, both theists and atheists that aren't them should set out and prove through action, that they are not all the stereotypes the other side has heard about.

Content like this is also just a way of reinforcing the stereotypes of one side, atheists in this case. It doesn't help to disprove the notion that all atheists are cocky assholes, and ends up being detrimental.
#449 - strikeoflightning (02/28/2013) [-]
I have to say, I enjoy conversing with you. If I weren't in the middle of writing a research paper, I would be much more involved.

While I agree with the fact that we hear more of the radicals because they're outside of the average attitude of society, I have to disagree and say that our opinions, as passive theists/atheists, are worth less. We are part of a group with beliefs that are not controversial. If I tell you "Humans breathe air," you will agree and we will move on because there is nothing to disagree or argue. However, if I tell you "I wish humans could breathe underwater," there is something to argue so a conversation could ensue. There's an agreement or disagreement to be had because there is more than one side to the topic.

If I tell you "I am Christian, but I don't care what other people believe," the general response is appreciation. Nobody is going to scold me for doing exactly what I'm supposed to do as a Christian and not harming anybody. However, if I say "I am Christian, and you should be too," you could disagree and then conversations on belief begin.

Because controversy and conversation cannot ignite from passive thoughts such as ours, they become unimportant to society as opinions.
#461 - simplescience (02/28/2013) [-]
While I do agree with your reasoning as to how our views are seen, I have to challenge your view of them being less important, and (if you haven't guessed by now) I'll tell you why.

First off, I'd like to point to your "I wish humans could breathe air" statement. That view is not exactly controversial, but actually imaginative and leaves itself open to interesting speculation as to how it might be different if that's how humans breathed air. A controversial statement would be "Humans don't actually breathe air. We actually breathe by involuntarily conducting photosynthesis".

Getting to my actual reasoning as to my challenge, a view that is seen as not against the norms does not mean either it or the person who believes it is valued any less or seen as insignificant, belief-wise because if those views were as you claim they were, then by eliminating them, the controversial views would become the dominant view, and would run unopposed. I'll give you an example to show you what I mean:

Say there was a person claiming that humans actually conducted photosynthesis. By the logic you're stating, if someone went up and directly challenged the controversial view with the accepted view society has, that we breathe air, their opinion would be pushed to the side. Let's go one more step and say this person was posted on Funnyjunk. If the accepted view were seen as less valuable and unimportant to society, then those who would state that humans actually breathe air would be criticized for believing that view.

That's rarely the case when someone with a controversial view makes it into the spotlight. Depending on the severity of the controversy caused, that person will usually be ignored or ridiculed, and the accepted norm will continue to stand.

To put it bluntly, I think that more passive views aren't heard of as much because they aren't money makers. They don't draw attention. However, that does not mean their importance or worth is any less.
#510 - strikeoflightning (02/28/2013) [-]
I understand your reasoning. Your thoughts make perfect sense, but I believe we've reached a misunderstanding.

See, I don't mean they're less significant because they're pushed aside. I mean that, because they're so normal and widely accepted, they don't need people constantly defending them.

Using your example, if someone says that we conduct involuntary photosynthesis, one of two things will happen: someone will say that it's an interesting way to look at it, or someone will think they're wrong or will disagree because we obviously require an oxygen intake rather than one of carbon dioxide and will either argue or let it the person think what they'd like.

In this analogy, you and I would simply let the person think what they'd like. If we do that, our opinions matter less because they aren't publicly challenging what is being stated. Because we don't bluntly state our opinion, our opinion is seen as weak, because we don't try to spread it as fact and therefore, according to society, we are unsure about them. Someone who would call the person out on their misinterpretation of the respiratory system would be the one with the recognized opinion. Even if we have the same opinion, ours have no strength behind it.
#516 - simplescience (03/01/2013) [-]
You're implying (I think) that nothing can be gained from focusing on someone with a passive opinion that goes along with the majority since there is an abundance of those views already. I strongly disagree with that assessment on the grounds a passive opinion to the accepted view does not automatically mean being passive or nonchalant about the entire topic.

It is entirely possible to go along with the majority and have a passive opinion with the main point but have a differing view as to how your belief works, or have a different way of reaching what the majority view is. Furthermore, you could go along with the main view, but disagree with bits and pieces about it. It's input of those that are passive which drives much of our world.

Think of it this way: What if the only feedback a company got was assertive views of both sides when asking for how an aspect could be improved. The company would be at a loss in determining what it should actually do. The opinions of a passive person could be seen as "This person seems to like the way things are, but doesn't denounce change. Perhaps we should consider keeping things the same for now, but leave the door open for improvements". In choosing such an option, it could result in helping to boost happiness of both sides who may have been more assertive since they each got something they wanted, and could be better for a company whose still unsure about making changes at the time. Yet, that decided action didn't come from one who strongly asserted their side. It came from a passive thinker.
#518 - strikeoflightning (03/01/2013) [-]
I think you've got me beat at this point. I don't have a rebuttal for that because I see no flaws in your argument.

I have to say, you're the most intellectual person I've ever had the pleasure to debate with, and you definitely know your way around the English language. I'm glad to have had this opportunity.
#520 - simplescience (03/01/2013) [-]
I thank you very much for such a kind compliment. I would like to share my opinion of you as well.

You are someone I'm glad to have conversed with, especially because throughout our discourse, you did not sink to calling me names or trying to start a ragefest, or dismiss what I said for an arbitrary reason. You continued to converse with me even though our views are different, and when I misunderstood, you instead told me what you meant instead of calling me names. Such a conversational partner seems to not come along very often, and I'm honestly glad that we had this discourse. If you ever are really bored and check through other comments I've made, you'll find I love to have debates, as I believe they keep the mind sharp.

I would like to also return the compliment in regards to mastery of the English language. It was always fun to read your replies because you went beyond normal expressions to get your point home.

Perhaps we'll have another discussion sometime?

(MFW your generous compliments:
<--
#521 - strikeoflightning (03/01/2013) [-]
I find an angry debate the least useful. It isn't truly a debate if there is no swaying of opinion being had. There's no reason to get angry because you didn't downsize my opinion a single time; you simply stated your own and gave your own supporting details. People are too sensitive to words nowadays. People believe that because they get offended, something should be done about the offense.

I'm always open to a friendly debate about any topic I have knowledge on. If I'm ignorant on the topic, then it's more of a lesson than a debate. Feel free to PM me or comment on my profile at any time; there's never a time that I'm not willing to socialize. Even in the worst of moods, the only cure to irritability is letting yourself be in your normal environment -- which happens to be socialization in my case.

Thank you for your compliment. While I'm not disagreeing, I fail to see any abnormal expressions that I've said. Although, if I said them, they must be normal to me. It's also a possibility that I'm saying expressions incorrectly; I'm not a native English speaker.

I'll do the honors of sending you a friend request.
User avatar #522 - simplescience (03/01/2013) [-]
Not a native English speaker? You truly could have fooled me (not sarcasm). I never would have guessed.

As for me, my English usage comes from my parents. They have an extensive vocabulary and love reading, and as a result, they're great at using the language. They bestowed such wisdom on me, and I just ran with it. For that I am grateful.

As for abnormal expressions, what I meant is that you found ways to reword your statements if I misunderstood or if they were unclear, making it easier for me to reply. What made it more impressive is that, in my opinion, these weren't light topics, yet you were able to rephrase them (what seemed like from my perspective) effortlessly. That's amazing.

Friend request accepted. :)
#523 - strikeoflightning (03/01/2013) [-]
I am born in France. I live in the United States now, but my first language is French.

That's always great. I get most of my syntax and diction from fights with my ex-girlfriend, honestly. I've found that the only way to calm a raging bull is to be calmer than the bull before the rage.

Well, thank you! I'm glad to be able to clarify what I'm trying to say without sounding like a bumbling buffoon. You seem to effortlessly throw your sentences together as well, and even with complex sentence structure, your sentences are easy to follow.
User avatar #307 - YllekNayr (02/28/2013) [-]
Well said, my friend.
User avatar #304 - spysappinmysasha (02/28/2013) [-]
yeah and its like reverse on the Internet, You want to have a place for yourself? fine, if the internet is doing that for you than all the power to you. HOWEVER, it seems Atheists on the internet are like the religious in real life. You cannot deny that the majority of "Internet Atheists" are condescending ass holes who pounce at every chance they get to bash the religious.

Not saying they are all like that, but a noticable amount of them are. And how are you? we just had a similar conversation earlier.
#314 - simplescience (02/28/2013) [-]
I won't deny what you say about most Atheists. I've seen them totally bashing religion, and it kind of makes me ashamed. In my opinion at least, being Atheist does not mean a free pass to go "HA UR RELIJUS! UR SO DUM!", just like being religious isn't a free pass to call an atheist a damned soul possessed by Satan or something. Religion has done good things, I won't deny that. I have a number of religious friends, and they're good people. Just because their beliefs differ from mine does not mean I think less of them.

That is why, instead of just complaining about it, I am setting out to make a good name for the Atheists on Funnyjunk, starting by striking up healthy and lively debates and being open minded.

(A little bit off topic, in case it crossed your mind. I chose this username since it's an oxymoron, not as a jab at religion)

As for me? I'm doing alright. I sprained my ankle earlier today and man did that hurt. I'll live though. How are you?

((Pic unrelated, btw. I rarely get the chance to use it))
User avatar #295 - drtrousersnake (02/28/2013) [-]
From an unbiased prospective Science and Religion amount to the same thing. A person (priest/teacher) tells you something that they read in a book (bible/textbook) written by someone you have never met, that talks about an event (miracle/experiment) that you have probably never experienced.
So until you have personally recreated Rutherford's experiment and every experiment that it was built upon, saying that we are made of tiny particles that physically take up less than 100th of the space they occupy has equivalent grounds to saying a magic sky genie created everything in a week.

TL;DR It all comes down to which band wagon you jump on and how far you let it take you.
#308 - simplescience (02/28/2013) [-]
Before I begin my reponse, I want to preface it with a this: I am not insulting you or anything about you. I am merely keeping up a lively debate because I believe it helps keep a mind sharp.

They aren't exactly the same thing, and I'm going to tell you why:

First off, the bible was written millenia ago and has been translated several times, whereas we have textbooks that stay in use until they are edited with up to date information. Religious books such as the Bible, the Koran, etc., are practically never updated except if a new translation comes out, but that really isn't updating it.

Furthermore, in textbooks found in class, several of the experiments listed in there can be duplicated and seen for yourself, whereas the events discussed in religious holy books can't, at least not very easily. I mean, I can open up my Chemistry textbook and see that there is an experiment for testing how much of a compound is in a solution, and I could run it for myself and see that it works. I can't exactly walk on water (I know its an overused example. Forgive me, I just got done with schoolwork).

As to the point of replicating Rutherford's experiment, that's not exactly true. I can take a sample of my skin or blood or something of the like, and run a few chemistry experiments (such as Infrared Spectroscopy, Titration (maybe), etc.), and from the results of those tests, I can determine how which elements the components of sample share characteristics with, and therefore I can determine what I'm made of.

There's really no way to prove that a sky wizard made everything in seven days, so based on the fact that I can use a number of scientific methods to figure out what I'm made of and (guess) how long the planet has been here, but I really can't do that with the Bible since it basically says "Because I said so", then the evidence lies in favor of science.

Perhaps I'm missing something though. I'm always open to a new viewpoint and lively debate. What's your take on this?
User avatar #327 - drtrousersnake (02/28/2013) [-]
All the test that you proposed to prove something only work with prior knowledge. The main point that I was trying to make is that both are supported by a circular argument. The only thing that truly supports science is science and the only thing that truly supports faith is faith. Each scientific theory is supported by an experiment given that another concept is true. That concept is supported by an experiment given another concept is true. Eventually you will get to a concept that is supported only by it being commonly accepted as true. If the concept that is supported only by it being commonly accepted as true is a magic sky daddy that created the universe, you have a religion.
#340 - simplescience (02/28/2013) [-]
If I'm understanding you right (and I want to make this clear: Do not hesitate to tell me if I'm perceiving the wrong message), you're basically saying that atheism is, in and of itself, a religion. You're reasoning for this is that any recorded experiment goes off of prior knowledge, and this eventually keeps going backwards until you reach a point where a piece of prior knowledge has no (perceived) scientific basis, and is based solely on faith.

To put it in a shorter way, you're saying that all of what science perceives to be true is based of what is seen as base facts that have their roots in a perceived belief of the way the world works, and that's what makes Atheism a religion (like I said, if I'm wrong, please correct me. I'm here to learn (and make a good name for Atheists), not to condescend).

While that is a fascinating line of thinking that I will dwell on, I'm not entirely sure that train of thought could put Atheism under a religion. Of course, I will back up my claim.

First off, while it may have been faith of perceived facts that were the basis of what we know today to be science, those facts have been made obsolete because science seeks to improve what it finds to be incorrect. Although it may a system only used on earth, the methods science has created to study the world around us have proven effective thus far.

What seperates science from normal religion even further is that science continues to progress and move forward, seeking to learn more. Religion does not do this, and it is content to stay where it is for long periods of time, only changing if it absolutely has to, and even then, it is only done begrudgingly. Science is willing to show how it got its results, instead of saying "because I said so".

Whether or not I believe in science does not make what science proves any less true or valid. Light will reflect off of surfaces whether I believe it or not. Water will turn to ice at low temperatures, whether I believe it or not.
User avatar #373 - drtrousersnake (02/28/2013) [-]
The scientific method is a way to find a perspectives on how the world works.
Religion is "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe".

As for atheism, atheism is not a religion but a subset of the many religions people can have. In terms of deities, you could be either theist or atheist. If you are a theist you could be polytheist or a monotheist. If you are a monotheist you could be a Jew, Muslim, deist, Pastafarian, etc. From the little I've read about Scientology, it could be considered a form of atheism or polytheism depending on how you look at it. According to Scientology "people are immortal beings who have forgotten their true nature". On one hand, if everyone is divine, you could say that everyone could be considered a god and Scientology is a polytheistic religion. On the other hand, because there is no higher deity than a person, you could say Scientology is an atheist religion.
#416 - simplescience (02/28/2013) [-]
An interesting comparison (not trolling, I mean it). However, by your own definitions, science is not a religion.

Your definitions say that the scientific method is a way to find a perspective on how the world works, but religion is a set of beliefs on how the world works (I know its not exact, but you know what I mean). In that sense, science seeks to find how the world works, while religion states that it believes it already knows how the universe works. This goes back to what I said in comment #240 in that religion is stagnant, whereas science is not. I don't think by this point in our conversation, I need to state examples of the latter.

Science is not a belief in the sense that it is true just because someone says it is true. Science differs from religion in that regard in the sense that what science says is true can be replicated, and I can find the answers in textbooks. However, it's not exactly clear how I can ask a divine being (or beings) for answers. Yes, science does have some degree of belief, but that belief is backed up by evidence we can see. Religious belief is to believe in something without having a definitive method of proving it (I'm running out of character count, or else I'd go into a bit more detail here).

Onto the rest of your statement, I would argue that Scientology is not an atheist religion, because that's an oxymoron. In addition, atheists do not believe in a divinity of any kind, so therefore Scientology cannot be an atheist religion on the grounds that atheists believe that we are nothing more than organic life forms with a limited lifespan that have no "forgotten past" or things of the like. The human brain has been mapped and nothing of the sort has been found. Furthermore, if one makes the claim that this "forgotten knowledge" is immeasurable or exists outside of nature, then it's an unfalsifiable hypothesis, and therefore is in the same boat as the existence of God, and is therefore rejected by the atheist.
User avatar #454 - drtrousersnake (02/28/2013) [-]
Atheism comes from "a" meaning without and theos meaning god. As I define earlier, religion is a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe. Saying that there can't be an atheist religion is the same as saying that unless you believe in god, you have no beliefs on the origin (cause) of the universe or the how it works (nature).
#473 - simplescience (02/28/2013) [-]
I challenge your notion that there is such a thing as an atheist religion. Saying there can be an atheist religion is like saying there is such a thing as a triangle with five points. Obviously, I will defend myself (Also I am letting you know. It's really late so I have to go to bed soon (Class at 8:30. It's 1.45). I plan on replying, but it won't be until much later).

First, while I won't deny where the word atheist got its start, it, much like way of thinking it represents, has changed over time, and now means more than just "without god". However, that's not the meat of my argument here.

Religion is, as you say, a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe. Atheism, which uses science to explain the world around it, is not a religion because it is not a system of beliefs. It is a system of proven methods to explain the world around us, it is not a belief. A belief means to have faith without having a logical reason for said faith.

Science does have logical reason to be followed, because its results can be replicated. As I said in an earlier comment, I don't have to believe in science for it to be true. I don't have to believe that electrical currents travelling through circuit is what makes light bulbs illuminate my room. It will be true whether I believe in it or not.

There cannot be an atheist religion if atheism, which is rooted in science and therefore has logical reason to be followed because of the fact that its results can be replicated and seen by the human eye, and religion is belief that requires faith with no logical reason to back it up, and can't be replicated so that they can be observed.

What are your thoughts on this?
#278 - xxxsonic fanxxx (02/28/2013) [-]
That's like saying, "I came from an abusive household so I'm going to beat the shit out of my kid all I want".

If your problem with religious people is that they're apparently shaming and ridiculing you then you've clearly missed a step in logic if your proud of creating the exact inverse online.
User avatar #300 - simplescience (02/28/2013) [-]
Yeeaah see... No, what you said is not like what I said.

What I said is like saying "Everyone around me likes pokemon and I don't. It's hard for me to say I don't like pokemon without being ostracized. I'd like a place where I can say I don't like it without being treated like a leper".

Also, you missed my point, anon. I don't want to create the exact same kind of thing but for Atheists, because that would be really hypocritical. What I meant was a place where atheists can say "Hey I'm an Atheist" and not get shunned for it. Does that mean they are immune from criticism and jokes? Of course not. I am not new to the internet. Nothing is excluded from mockery, and honestly, I don't approve of the "HAHA UR RELIGIOUS" atheists, because they're hypocrites.

To sum it all up, my post is saying "Hey, let's give Atheists a place to be proud of what they believe, since there isn't many other places they can" not "LOL RELIJUN IS DUM GTFO GOD LUVR!"

So many people here get on Atheists for being here. I was just explaining why.
User avatar #230 - thesovereigngrave (02/28/2013) [-]
I, personally, am completely fine with atheists until they start attacking people's religious beliefs.

And I don't mean discussing them, I mean maliciously attacking them.
User avatar #222 - matthewfuckingmain (02/28/2013) [-]
You want a place for Atheist to say what they want, and have no one question it? Everyone has a right to believe what they want, and say what they want. But the moment you try to say that I can't argue with you about it, or point out problems in what you're saying, that's where it starts to sound a bit stupid. Just say and post what you want, but don't get mad when someone disagrees with it.
User avatar #234 - jedimindaugas (02/28/2013) [-]
You misinterpreted him. He never asked for a place where atheism would be unquestionable - it would only transform it into an another religion. Read the post more carefully.

On a side note, about the freedom to openly express their beliefs - why do we give such an exclusive right to expressing religion? Afterall, we do silence any sexism/racism.
User avatar #238 - matthewfuckingmain (02/28/2013) [-]
I personally don't get offended when people express their opinion. I'd rather not have any one place where one belief is consider stronger than another one. Questions, and disbelief is important to an extent. Atheism is not a religion. It's a lack of religion. Why would you want to transform something that rejects religions, into a religion itself? People express their beliefs every day. Anywhere where a certain religion holds more power than another, it will become what I just explained. A place where anyone who questions the idea will be blindly hated for no reason. The internet is pretty even in my opinion, there are of course sites dedicated to Atheism, and sites dedicated to other beliefs. Atheism shouldn't take hold of the internet and make it it's home. This is coming from a christian who isn't effected by people stating their beliefs, nor people shoving them down my throat. I understand he was not saying what I inferred, but it's what it will become.
User avatar #245 - jedimindaugas (02/28/2013) [-]
I would like to think that I promote less of an Atheism, but more like reasonable thinking and facts. I do not mind people having their own personal opinions on the existence of deities(even if the chances are proven to be very,very slim; even I can't deny there MIGHT be Futurama's God).
What I am fighting is religion as a structure, an organized set of rules prejudices. That's where the straightforward evil is presently coming.
User avatar #253 - matthewfuckingmain (02/28/2013) [-]
All this could be fixed if people woke up and decided to think for themselves. I see nothing wrong with churches, but there has to be a moment where people actually have to understand that just because that person is a priest, or preacher, he isn't God himself. As for your beliefs in if God is real or not. It's not something that can be proven. You have to have faith in him, and that is the point of God in my opinion. He doesn't want there to be proof of his existence, he wants you to put faith in him being real. I personally don't find that difficult at all, but some people do. It's not my place to try to convert you, it's up to you to choose what you think is best.
User avatar #274 - jedimindaugas (02/28/2013) [-]
How could you even convert if I haven't got the slightest idea what you believe in. Even if I were to believe that there is an omnipotent being, it would change nothing.I don't proclaim my beliefs in my post, I state facts and conclusions: 1) the chance of there actually being a God is slim. Acting upon it would be like betting on flipping the coin on heads 1000 times in a row. 2) Religion at its core is harmful for the society in the present
User avatar #303 - matthewfuckingmain (02/28/2013) [-]
Religion isn't harmful. The people involved are harmful. Calling religion evil is like calling a gun evil, or calling a hammer evil, or any other tool. Religion at it's basics is a tool to help people live their life. When people take that tool, and use it for evil means, they are evil, not the tool itself. Calling religion harmful to society is just ignorant and ignoring all the good it has brought. I have full belief in God, one hundred percent. I don't look at it like flipping a coin, I look at it as believing in something good, and powerful.
User avatar #318 - jedimindaugas (02/28/2013) [-]
The problem is, it really IS harmful. I'm not pulling it out of my hat either. If you want to compare it to a tool, it would be an unstable time bomb.
Look , it is very late and I won't be able to put down the whole reasoning, but I'll give a few points here. Do note that my target is not personal beliefs, but religion as a structure:
* It promotes blind faith. You can see it in every religion. The members are asked to shove aside any facts and reasoning for undeniable "truth. That's how you get zealots with undeniable faith, easy to manipulate by offering rewards in the supposed afterlife.
* They try to enforce morals through books/stories/scripts. And the problem is that morals evolve. "Sacred" documents do not. They're recollections of ancient morals and the people's view's on the world, which really were advanced for that time, BUT emphasis on 'that time' - we live in the present.
* They create intolerance and divide people. Sure, they all make poems about the love for the family and neighbours, but that's where the love ends. Look at Ireland -the northern and the southern parts still can't get along! And for what!? All because children were told from the start that THEIR religion is true, that THEY are superior and the others are infidels.
And that leads to probably the biggest offender of all:
*Child abuse. Literal. Psychological. All those stories about hell and torture, all those preaches about the superiority are shoved into them. Into kids, who take it all literally, who still don't know any better. It is not because they are stupid, no, it is because they are genetically programmed to believe what they are told, to fallow the advice of the ones who have survived and thus should know better. All of this is sometimes almost impossible to get rid of upon adulthood. Thus, the cycle continues.
There is also contravercity, violence, double meaning but zzzzzz...
If you were not tought like that, then you are not a Christian. And be proud of it!
User avatar #405 - matthewfuckingmain (02/28/2013) [-]
I was taught that my religion (Christianity) is right. Everyone else is wrong, IE Atheists, Buddest, ect. I was taught that the bible (New testament) is the word of God. I was taught that homosexuality is wrong. I was taught that Hell is real, but I was never once threatened with it. I was told that as long as I believe, and pray for forgiveness that I will be fine. I was also taught to hate the sin, but love the sinner. On top of that, I was taught that God doesn't want hate in your heart. Your examples for religion being harmful for the most part stem from people. The bible never says to murder in the name of God. People tell you to murder in the name of God. The bible never says to scare, and put fear into children. People put fear into children. As for your thoughts on intolerance, people create intolerance, not God. God does not say to insult, or harm people who are homosexual, or who don't believe the same as you. People do it because they can't handle someone living differently than them. As for blind faith. I don't see anything harmful in denying things that other people consider true. That doesn't seem to hurt anyone. If someone wants to believe that the sky is purple, It doesn't affect me. Now if they were to start murdering people that didn't believe the sky is purple, then it's the fault of the man manipulating them, not the religion itself. Evolving morals is just a matter of opinion. Morals are the same in my opinion. Murder is still murder. Stealing is still stealing. Abortion, and homosexuality are the ones that can be argued the most. But still, I have my beliefs and you have yours. I don't go around killing gay people, nor do I kill people who are pro-choice. Religion isn't evil, people are evil. Religion isn't harmful, people who lie, and manipulate are.
User avatar #489 - jedimindaugas (02/28/2013) [-]
Open your eyes man! Right now it is blind faith talking! Think God damn, THINK what comes with blind faith that ignores all FACTS! I believe that the mines are harmful and run through the mine field, you believe that being stabbed is a pleasurable experience and go on a rampage! Or how about two seemingly normal and well educated students who put their blind faith that they are doing the right thing and are getting rewarded in heaven??? Referring to London's metro terrorist act!!!! Believing in something is just one step from ACTING upon it! Asking to blame only the people and not the medium is like legalizing all drugs! Hey, lets overlook that he was forcefully injected with hallucinogens that made him kill his wife, the drug is totally harmless.
"God does not say to insult, or harm people who are homosexual"
"If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives."
" The bible never says to murder in the name of God."
"They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman. (2 Chronicles 15:12-13 NAB)"
It takes just one search. I believe that Bibles does proclaim murder. Go on, put your blind faith and ignore the facts that are in thine Book of Truths. The sky is purple afterall.
User avatar #517 - matthewfuckingmain (03/01/2013) [-]
All your quotes are from the old testament. Which is outdated and doesn't speak for me, or most Christians. I expected you to know that. "Open my eyes?" My eyes are wide open. The thing that is talking is my beliefs and my opinion. If you classify every instance of Christians standing up for the faith as "Blind Faith" then I can't take you seriously. Legalizing all drugs would stop the illegal drug cartels, and be helpful. People that do heroine will do heroine. Making all personal choices illegal won't stop heroine, or any other drug won't stop it from happening. You aren't making any sense. You just named all acts that people got forced into doing, or manipulated into doing. Also your facts aren't exactly facts. I'm not here to convert you, I'm not here to argue opinions with you. Which is what we're doing. There are no facts in what we're discussing. It's all faith, and without faith, man would be nothing. Believe what you want, it won't effect me. Like I said I haven't gone around and murdered people for my belief, nor would I ever. All of theses examples don't have anything to do with me, because they don't apply to me. I won't be memorized or hypnotized by some crazy man. Your blame for violence in the world is misplaced. Start blaming the choice, not the religions, or the guns. I hope you will realize that people are to blame for the death and violence in this world, not beliefs. Have a good day, and a great life. God bless.
User avatar #525 - jedimindaugas (03/01/2013) [-]
Oh I'm not going to set everyone on parole and blame religion only. People are responsible for their actions. However, I do not approve of the negative influence. Now you might say that you can learn a lot in the preaches, but that's humans talking. Religion at its basic level is a negative influence due to blind faith and I do not mean faith in the existence of a deity. However, unbreakable faith in the teachings leads to easy manipulation and straightforward "the American Taliban".
As for the Jesus quotes..:
""I say to you that to everyone who has, more shall be given, but from the one who does not have, even what he does have shall be taken away. As for my enemies who do not want me to reign over them, bring them here and kill them in my presence" Luke 19:26-27"
"But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. — Luke 19:27"
The Jesus followers were like a sect, encouraging to leave their families, friends etc. He also promoted self-loathe and everywhere you turn it is sin, sin,sin, sin, repent,repent, you are lousy, repent, sin.
Granted, these are far fewer in between, most often wrapped in between the lines, BUT there isn't a single line that would suggest disregarding OT. In fact, there are plenty of lines suggesting that Jesus came to reinforce them. We all know that both OT and NT were delivered by a God. Does that mean he had a change of hearth? AFAIK the almighty should be unchanging.
Face it, it is the PEOPLE who CHOSE to obey NT only, it is the PEOPLE who take note and preach (mostly) the positive things, trying to warp christianity into something it never was.
And look at Jesus as a character. We all know Adam and Eve never existed, so he came to the world to suffer for the symbolic sin of non-existing character and die in the name of... himself? Sounds legit.
User avatar #217 - shmoopy (02/28/2013) [-]
I get asked the morality question fairly often. I tell them that I think about how I would want to be treated if I were in a given situation. Then they tell me that "Do unto others as they do unto you" is in the Bible. I mean, it's not like the Bible invented that concept, but they don't care. It's in the Bible therefore only people touched by Christianity can think that way. I still can't think of a follow up that isn't insulting. It's infuriating.
User avatar #207 - laky (02/28/2013) [-]
Oh god i actually feel bad for all of you living in the states.
User avatar #185 - jedimindaugas (02/28/2013) [-]
That is one sad true mon, religion is dominant and that's a huge problem for the society.
I am so glad I'm not living in America, After reading "The American taliban" quotes I got sick to my stomach. Is it really so horrible out there?
#220 - riventhexile (02/28/2013) [-]
ok, 1) i really is not that bad hear in the states, at least I dont think it is. and of course if some one who is a christian, and knows an athiest, of course they are going to try and convert them. its part of what they believe! 2) i've gotten just as much shit from athiests in my short life. now i'm not saying that christians have it bad in any way, i'm just stating that it goes both ways. 3) i don't know what the "american taliban" quotes are. but it's probably not as bad as what they make it out to be.
User avatar #226 - jedimindaugas (02/28/2013) [-]
Google it for adultthought website. I was mortified. It might not be the only proof of what a horrible influence religions have in the present, but a damn good one.
User avatar #236 - riventhexile (02/28/2013) [-]
hmmmm yeah those all do seem to be pretty disgusting. i have no doubt though that these people are NOT the majority, and if any of them tried to pass any of their rediculous ideas through congress they would get shut down. also they had several quotes from KNOWN hate groups in there, such as the westboro baptist church, which doesn't do to well with the credibility imo,
User avatar #218 - TripleCarbon (02/28/2013) [-]
I don't have anything else to compare it to, as I've only lived here.
But I would say yes and no. A lot of things suck, a lot of things don't suck.
Completely vague answer but it's too broad of a topic.
#39 - So is Stanley Yelnats. 02/28/2013 on I don't know either +23
#68 - Super Android 13 has the solution for that, Frieza. <--  [+] (5 new replies) 02/28/2013 on Draggin Ballz +1
User avatar #75 - ronyx (02/28/2013) [-]
Can anybody tell me what movies are and which ones aren't cannon?
#76 - simplescience (02/28/2013) [-]
None of the movies released thus far are canon as far as I know, but I've heard rumors that the newest DBZ movie slated to come out in Japan next month will be canon as it supposedly covers the time between Buu being defeated and the world tournament where Goku faces Uub.

Pic related, it's the movie poster:
<--
User avatar #88 - andyyy (02/28/2013) [-]
It's Canon
User avatar #78 - picklous (02/28/2013) [-]
do you know if they will sub/dub it?
#71 - epicapocalypse (02/28/2013) [-]
I didn't know Blanca was in Dragon Ball z! I thought that was just Street fighter!
#67 - Comment deleted 02/28/2013 on Draggin Ballz 0
#215 - Picture  [+] (3 new replies) 02/28/2013 on Too great +3
#251 - thebigcountry (02/28/2013) [-]
#283 - theygotgrapedrink (02/28/2013) [-]
#289 - thebigcountry (02/28/2013) [-]
#213 - I really get annoyed with these people that continue to argue …  [+] (4 new replies) 02/28/2013 on Too great +13
User avatar #240 - spysappinmysasha (02/28/2013) [-]
I dont mean to start anything, but the Bible doesnt really say too much about Homosexuality. And its not even one of the ten commandments that opposite genders have to marry. So honestly the poeple who are saying its wrong are probably bad people to begin with as I bet none of them even read the Bible to begin with.

I am just tiered of everyone on the internet assuming us Christians are the bane of existence. Ya know, we arent all bad.
User avatar #264 - simplescience (02/28/2013) [-]
I'm not saying Christians are bad. Who I am calling bad are the homophobes who try to justify their phobia by pointing to the bible. Really, the bible is the only safe haven for homophobes much these days, and even it isn't holding up well anymore.

I have several friends who are Christians, and I do not think they are bad people. The people I think are bad are the ones that use the Bible to justify whatever messed up thing they want to do.
User avatar #366 - dangitbobby (02/28/2013) [-]
Agreed. And the parts that do condemn homosexuality, namely the passage in Leviticus (I forget the verse numbers) only apply to Hebrew priests of that time period. You'd have to do some deeper reading to see that, but most Christians that use this passage are too ignorant to do so. Jesus doesn't mention homosexuality at all, so I don't know where all the Christians think their arguments against homosexuality have any credibility beyond ignorance.
#261 - speeduk (02/28/2013) [-]
I agree with you that not all Christians are like this. But at the same time, homophobic people use Christianity and other religions as platforms for their bigoted views. They claim that in the bible this is how marriage should be, or in other holy books it's sinful to lie with the same gender. If religious institutions wanted to remove this platform, it would be well within their power to do so. Senior members of their faiths could correct them; they could make statements to the extent that what these people claim has no grounding in their religious institutions. But they do not.

Luckily, what simplescience is saying is true. These people are steadily losing ground to stand for, and for that I am optimistic.
#90 - Interesting. I was not aware of some of these facts. I thank y…  [+] (1 new reply) 02/27/2013 on Hitler 0
User avatar #92 - thatoneiranianguy (02/27/2013) [-]
Simply put not a lot of the "facts" are really presented in schools, or in most common books.

To really find the truth in something, especially as controversial as Nazism and WWII, you have to dig deeply, find adequate writers that have sources, and then rationalize all you've learned into your own opinion.

But a little more on National Socialism; part of the reason it was such an anti-Jewish policy was because Jewry was heavily associated with Communism, which was the prime enemy at the time. Because honestly....Communism is a retarded idea for people who cant get it through their head that we're not a perfect people that can build a Utopian society. If we were we would of done it long before Marx or Engels wrote a history-defining book about it. It ended up bringing nations down in all parts, people suffered, starved, ran out of money and what not.

We don't really have proof in the sense of a graph or chart. But if we study the political climate of the world (or rather Europe) of that time we can see Communism equally making a growth in Germany along with the Jews (because at the time the Jews were the wealthiest people.) So Hitler had associated Communism with Jewry.
#81 - That's why I thought to bring up Jong-Un. A bit more of a mode…  [+] (3 new replies) 02/27/2013 on Hitler +1
User avatar #85 - thatoneiranianguy (02/27/2013) [-]
He worked his way up because he legitimately cared.

For the most part he's brought up more than anyone else, is because of two reasons. He's the most recent man in close history to have done something on a national scale. Plus, there was still a lot of post-war propaganda created by the Jews and Communists.

The Soviet Union was trying to make an advance into all of Europe to spread its influence, and we know that the NSDAP (National Socialism) rose up in Germany as an anti-communist party. So a lot of propaganda was built up by the Soviet Union to convince everyone National Socialism is 100% the wrong route to go.

Then you had the Jews working to create a national state for their people in Palestine, which they did in 1948 and named it Israel. Of course they needed to keep propaganda up against Antisemitism in order to maintain the state of Israel. Here in the US we feel the biggest impact of Anti-National Socialism strife because we're extremely good friends with Israel. Although, what's sad though is now you have these skin heads running around here in the US, wearing Swasticka T-Shirts, just to justify racism. Which, wasn't entirely what the NSDAP party was about.

Keep in mind, the NSDAP in Germany was not the only antisemitic group in Europe at the time, other national leaders disliked Jews and non-whites.
User avatar #90 - simplescience (02/27/2013) [-]
Interesting. I was not aware of some of these facts. I thank you educating me on that topic. I guess I should read up more. :P
User avatar #92 - thatoneiranianguy (02/27/2013) [-]
Simply put not a lot of the "facts" are really presented in schools, or in most common books.

To really find the truth in something, especially as controversial as Nazism and WWII, you have to dig deeply, find adequate writers that have sources, and then rationalize all you've learned into your own opinion.

But a little more on National Socialism; part of the reason it was such an anti-Jewish policy was because Jewry was heavily associated with Communism, which was the prime enemy at the time. Because honestly....Communism is a retarded idea for people who cant get it through their head that we're not a perfect people that can build a Utopian society. If we were we would of done it long before Marx or Engels wrote a history-defining book about it. It ended up bringing nations down in all parts, people suffered, starved, ran out of money and what not.

We don't really have proof in the sense of a graph or chart. But if we study the political climate of the world (or rather Europe) of that time we can see Communism equally making a growth in Germany along with the Jews (because at the time the Jews were the wealthiest people.) So Hitler had associated Communism with Jewry.
#73 - Comment deleted  [+] (1 new reply) 02/27/2013 on Good Guy Balls -7
#81 - ragged (02/27/2013) [-]
You could, but you shouldn't.

Show All Replies Show Shortcuts
Per page:
Order:
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
User avatar #59 - flingwing (09/07/2013) [-]
all the reasons you posted still pale in comparison to what happens to women in third world countries. my point is that men and women in OUR society have equal problems, but outside of privileged first world countries, women are literally trash.

lets just say, inside the USA i am a human rights activist, but outside the USA i am a human rights activists focused mainly on feminism.

yes its terrible about all those thing that happen to men and honestly sometimes i feel like women get a slightly better deal because if we have an issue we arent taught to suppress it and bury it like men are. i have multiple male friends who have been raped, and they have not been able to talk to people or have their problems sorted out or have the rapist brought to justice. but even that, doesnt not compare to how the gang raping of women is literally used as a mode of warfare in sudan.
User avatar #60 to #59 - simplescience (09/07/2013) [-]
I think some clarification is in order here (and before you think I'm saying this in a "you're wrong and let me to tell you why" manner, I implore you to read on and wait until the end).

I never said Feminism is not needed. Feminism is indeed very much needed in third world countries. I happen to know that exceptionally well since I am the Research Officer of an anti-human trafficking group on my campus. Those countries need to give women the tools they need to succeed where they clearly are not apparent in any form.

What I have a problem with is not that women need to be empowered in countries where they are treated more as property than people, it's how Feminism aims to go about this. I implore you to provide evidence if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that Feminism aims to empower women in a way that could also be a long-term detriment to men. Before you say that they need to have some of their power curbed (which is true), let me explain myself.

Take America for example, Feminism has gained many rights for women, but look at the cost to men. Boys are never really encouraged to be proud of themselves as boys; they are rarely given the kind of support that girls get for being proud of their gender. This is just one example. I could go on.

My problem with Feminism is that in its mission to push for equality, it seems like it doesn't even let boys sit at the discussion table and often dismiss males input.

Then, the movement justifies this unfair exclusion by basically saying "Females in other countries are treated ****** , so your problems of how men are treated in this country don't matter and won't be addressed "(I have talked with a handful of Feminists who have said or implied that my opinion of Feminism is invalid because I'm a male).

To be blunt, what happens to women in other nations is completely irrelevant as to why Feminism rarely if ever addresses the problems men face in America. Yes, women being gang-raped in Sudan is terrible, and action should be taken to stop that. However, that does not give Feminism a free pass to push young boys and men to the side.

Feminism wants to have its cake and eat it too in America. It wants to make the bold declaration of seeking equality for both genders, and then wants to justify the unfair treatment of males by saying that horrible things happen to women in other nations, effectively saying that because of other countries problems, Feminism is allowed to push boys to the side.

By doing that, Feminism thus acts in the same behavior as the patriarchy they condemn, I.E. "Sit down, shut up, you're not allowed to speak".

To sum it all up, yes, the problems I listed do pale in comparison to problems face in other countries, but that does not justify the blatant disregard for concerns of mens rights in America. That would be like me going to a college professor and saying "Due to homework I had in another class, I did not remember to do the 3 week project you assigned 2 1/2 weeks ago". That excuse wouldn't fly in that situation, and it should not (and in my mind, does not) fly when Feminism uses it.
User avatar #61 to #60 - flingwing (09/07/2013) [-]
first of all, you seriously need to learn how to not say so much because i really really do not care enough about this situation to read all that.

and yes american feminism implies that it is for the rights of women and only women, i agree with you. which is why i focus more on equal rights than womens rights.

but dude for reals chill it with the blah blah
User avatar #62 to #61 - simplescience (09/07/2013) [-]
You're the one that opened the door for this kind of response by calling male rights activists trivial and then implying mens rights concerns aren't important because of gang-raping in Sudan.

Besides, would you prefer that I give you a lengthy response that shows I actually know what I'm talking about and gives insight into my point, or would you prefer a short response where I pretty much just say you're wrong and call you names?
User avatar #63 to #62 - flingwing (09/07/2013) [-]
i was saying male rights activists are as trivial as first world feminism, which is, sometimes but not always. because some male activists whine about dumb trash like friendzoning, much like some first world feminists whine about dumb trash like girls getting killed in videogames being supposedly rape. other mens rights activists strive for equality like male custody rights or help for male rape victims, much like other first world feminists strive for equality such as trans womens oversexualization in the porn industry or sexism in the workplace. i wasnt saying mens rights were trvial, i said they were only as trvial as the problems women have in a first world society. basically what im saying is we should stop worrying about equality in our own country because most of the problems we have with equality are social issues that for the most part can only be worked out with awareness campaigns instead of legal action, and instead worry about the equality in other countries
User avatar #56 - bulbakip (05/05/2013) [-]
Yay friends! I'm going into the US Navy to learn Applied Sciences. Advanced Electronics specifically.
User avatar #57 to #56 - simplescience (05/05/2013) [-]
That sounds very intriguing. May I ask why?
User avatar #58 to #57 - bulbakip (05/05/2013) [-]
To study advanced electronics! :D and get a career in science going, for free. getting paid to workout and learn and travel, sounds good to me.
User avatar #28 - amissingmouse (02/24/2013) [-]
Hi.
User avatar #55 to #28 - simplescience (02/24/2013) [-]
It seems I cannot reply to your reply to my comment on the part of you that is unattractive, so I am bringing this back up here. I have this to say about whatever it is you have done to your arm: If a man is going to turn you away because he doesn't understand the torment you went through earlier in your life, then that asswipe is not worth your time, but there will be someone that will be willing to help with that pain and will assure you, much better than I can, that you are not an ugly or terrible person.
User avatar #29 to #28 - simplescience (02/24/2013) [-]
Hello there.
User avatar #30 to #29 - amissingmouse (02/24/2013) [-]
What's up?
User avatar #31 to #30 - simplescience (02/24/2013) [-]
Nothing much. I'm just browsing the web until I feel tired enough to go to bed. What's up with you?
User avatar #32 to #31 - amissingmouse (02/24/2013) [-]
I just got dumped. :)
So I'm feeling preeeeeeeeetttttttty ****** .
..Yup...
User avatar #33 to #32 - simplescience (02/24/2013) [-]
I'm sorry you had to deal with such a painful experience. Is there something I can do to help?
User avatar #34 to #33 - amissingmouse (02/24/2013) [-]
Just chatting I suppose.
I think I saw your comment yesterday, about never having a girlfriend and whatever else. All I'm going to say is, Don't bother. You honestly aren't missing out on much...
User avatar #35 to #34 - simplescience (02/24/2013) [-]
Why do you say that, may I ask?
User avatar #36 to #35 - amissingmouse (02/24/2013) [-]
I'm young, I've attempted to be in relationships. Now, because of my physical appearance, I can only seem to woo the attention of guys on the internet. Now, not only that, I have only ever gotten into one relationship in which I'd call it serious. That's the one I was just in, of course, he just decided to **** me over, like everyone else has. From what I've experienced, getting into a relationship seems to only harm, and rarely does any real good.

Anyway...I think that maybe we should stay on a topic which is much lighter than the terms of my past relationships. How are you this evening, dear sir? And what are you planning on doing for the rest of the evening? :D
User avatar #37 to #36 - simplescience (02/24/2013) [-]
On the note of relationships, I would just like to share a bit of my own personal experiences. Now, I've never had a relationship, but I've had several friends tell me about their breakups and they tell me how they will never get into another one. I know we've just began conversing, but I would like to tell you what I tell my other friends. I will not deny the pain behind a breakup, but I ask that you not condemn an entire gender or shut out a potential relationship due to the actions of a few slime-balls.

I am actually doing quite well this evening. I am doing quite well. I've talked to a few friends and played some pokemon as well. As for the rest of the evening, I plan on listening to music and playing some more Pokemon Black 2. How about you?
User avatar #38 to #37 - amissingmouse (02/24/2013) [-]
Well, it's sunday, 5:21 pm here...Planning on just doing some homework, before messing around with my ears, and their piercings. Maybe even playing some xbox. I'm looking for some new friends for skype though...
User avatar #41 to #38 - simplescience (02/24/2013) [-]
I haven't used Skype in forever, mostly because I'm usually bogged down by schoolwork (due to being a Chemistry major in college).

By the way, you mentioned you said you can only woo men over the internet due to your physical appearance? What does that entail exactly? I ask since you don't sound like that bad of a person, and I don't exactly think looks alone determine how attractive someone is.
User avatar #42 to #41 - amissingmouse (02/24/2013) [-]
My skype is amissingmouse if you wanna add me.

I'm just ugly. That's it.
User avatar #43 to #42 - simplescience (02/24/2013) [-]
This may sound cliche and corny, but physical appearance alone does not determine how attractive you are. You shouldn't put yourself down so harshly. Even if you're not what most define as physically attractive, that does not mean you're doomed to no relationship like I am. Quite the opposite actually. In my experience, personality can make one forego the looks of a potential dating partner, and on that note:

I may have been without a relationship my entire life, I did fall in love with a woman in New York that one would probably not be considered attractive by societal norms, but she was sweet and intelligent. When I would talk to her, I didn't care for one moment what she looked like. I was just happy talk to her. I know you will find someone that will love you for who you are.

A favored quote that I tell my friends who are down is that life is like a jump rope. Things may be down now, but they will get better.
User avatar #44 to #43 - amissingmouse (02/24/2013) [-]
I wish they would get better.
You're talking to someone who just doesn't give a **** , and has already given up.
User avatar #45 to #44 - simplescience (02/24/2013) [-]
I apologize in advance if anything I say in this reply offends you.

I ask you that not unfairly condemn and dismiss guys. I ask that you not give up and surrender. You are not a bad person, and you're not the ugly or unattractive person you tell me you are. How could I say this after only talking to you for a few replies? I'll tell you.

Talking to you, I've found that you have a genuinely friendly personality. You, to some extent, enjoy conversation and making friends. Speaking from my own wants, I know I like someone who is willing to converse with me, and I'm betting several other people do as well. When it comes to making friends, while I can't speak for the entirety of the male gender, I know that I (and probably other guys out there) would much rather have a friendly and pleasant woman that enjoys conversation who might not have what might be considered physically beautiful over some gorgeous woman who has an ego the size of the Hindenburg and talks down to people.

To quote one of my favorite songs by Blue October: "Don't lose yourself, or your hope. Life's like a jump rope....it (life) will get hard, but remember life's like a jump rope". There might come a person who will just find you to be the most amazing woman on the planet, and you definitely deserve someone like that. Should someone like that come along, don't let that person escape because of the douchebag actions of people in your past. Those assholes from the past may not be worth your time, but someone out there will think you're amazing, and if you're willing to be a little patient and not let some slime-balls keep you down, then I believe that person will come along.

Don't dismiss yourself, or any part thereof. Don't give up on love and happiness just because of some player asshole that wouldn't wouldn't know how to be a good man even if someone came up and gave him detailed instructions.

I know from talking to my other friends, and from rejections that I face, that hearing what I'm saying can be hard to believe, hard to listen to, or hard to accept. I'm not saying immediately take in what I say and throw away your pain and sadness because I know the sting of a breakup can last, and sometimes (like with the woman in New York I mentioned earlier), that sting can last for years.

What I am saying is that if the pain ever subsides, that you don't close yourself off forever, because you are worth more than you seem to be giving yourself credit for, and you deserve more than being alone for the rest of your life.
#46 to #45 - amissingmouse (02/24/2013) [-]
I honestly would never just say that all guys are douche bags, but, I seem to have met too many of them to be able to justify my views so that it goes any other way. It's kinda sad to be honest, because the more I think about it, the more I realise, that all of the guys I've met are pretty much douche bags, and i think I'm beginning to think of the rest of the male kind to be douche bags.

Until I find someone who really cares, like this guy pretended to do, I don't know what I'll do. Possibly just friendzone everyone who comes within a foot of me. That seems like a plausible answer. Not only that, I could also just stay single for the rest of my life and have a dog. Dogs are better than people from what I've experienced. They don't judge looks, or appearance, and they'll always be there for you when you need them the most. :3

As well as that, unless you can introduce me to some non-douchey guys, I honestly don't think I'm going to meet any.

Thanks for trying to be kind. Pic related, it's me. :) I look terrible, I know...
User avatar #49 to #46 - simplescience (02/24/2013) [-]
I also noticed a split-second too late after I pressed "reply" that I did not address your picture. I would like to actually comment on it if I may.

1) I really like your hair, but then again, I really like long hair.

2) Also, none of your facial features are anywhere near as bad as you've been making them out to be. I'm betting that if you smiled, your face would light up and look even more gorgeous.

3) You don't look terrible. I know how cliche that must sound, and I realize how much of a "standard" response that sounds like, so I'm going to go a bit more in-depth. Based on the picture you have provided, you are nowhere near as ugly and terrible looking as you keep telling me. When I heard you talk about yourself like that, I had a mental image far worse than what I'm seeing, yet at the same time, I thought that there was no way someone who is as friendly as you have shown yourself to be. To sum it up, I could tell just from talking to you, that there was no way you look as bad as you say, and this picture confirms my thoughts.
User avatar #50 to #49 - amissingmouse (02/24/2013) [-]
T-thank you I suppose. I've never really had people really compliment me, and it's only been recently that I've been able to accept any compliments (after the bullying..I just...no..) So thank you, I appreciate your compliment. :3
However, there is a certain part of me, which is not attractive at all, it's ugly, hideous, and something I'm going to have to live with for the rest of my life.
User avatar #51 to #50 - simplescience (02/24/2013) [-]
Then to that, I say that, at some time, there will come a guy that will love you enough that will be able to look past this part of you that you deem unattractive, and will love you regardless.
User avatar #52 to #51 - amissingmouse (02/24/2013) [-]
I don't think so..It's on my arm, no one can ever look at me the same, after seeing what damage I've caused to my arm. :c
User avatar #47 to #46 - simplescience (02/24/2013) [-]
You say "introduce some non-douchey guys". Let me ask you something. Do you honestly believe that in the time you've talked to me that I am some douchebag guy that is judging you and thinking you're some ugly woman who will be alone forever? Do you honestly get the impression that I am some dickhead that just wants to use you? If you do believe that, then I follow up with asking how I've managed to do that?

As to your thoughts on friendzoning people, let me ask you: What if some really sweet nice guy comes along and wants to make you happy, and you let him slip away because he's been friendzoned? That's not entirely fair to guys at all. Why should all men be tarred with the same brush just because a few have wronged you? That's like saying "I had a bad plate of french fries when I went to that restaurant a few times, therefore all restaurants are going to serve me bad fries."

As I've said, I'm not saying completely turn yourself around due to my words, but at the same time, don't hold a long-standing grudge against all men and think they are all ********* . Give us guys a chance, eh? We're not all douchebags, just like any guy who dismisses all women is being unfair by thinking women are all mind-game playing bitches (forgive my language).
User avatar #48 to #47 - amissingmouse (02/24/2013) [-]
I suppose that is true...I don't know...
You seem kind, and not douchey. I'm a bit tired, so my responses are a bit shorter.
I honestly just wanna meet someone nice :c I put so much time and effort in, only to get hurt. :c
User avatar #53 to #48 - simplescience (02/24/2013) [-]
If you're tired, then maybe lie down and take a rest, eh? I apologize for keeping you up this late with my walls of text, and I'll let you get some sleep.
User avatar #54 to #53 - amissingmouse (02/24/2013) [-]
I'm not tired, just, my eyes hurt a bit. I want to talk to someone on skype because of this .But, eh, no one is willing to talk to me on it.
#27 - alZii has deleted their comment [-]
#25 - mangioluingi ONLINE (09/20/2011) [-]
guess why I'm here?

hint: I love you bro
User avatar #26 to #26 - simplescience (09/20/2011) [-]
Thank you very much. This really helped me out. I hadn't been feeling 100% lately. :)
#21 - omegasoul (09/19/2011) [-]
I LIKE YOU,BUT YOU REPOSTED YOU OWN CONTENT TRY TO NOT DO THAT IN THE FUTURE
User avatar #22 to #22 - simplescience (09/19/2011) [-]
It was only reposted because I wanted people to know to get the game that I was talking about in my content. I didn't want people who like portal to go without. I knew it would vanish after 24 hours, so I reposted it so people would know even after it expired the first time.
User avatar #23 to #23 - omegasoul (09/19/2011) [-]
...HMMM,OK
#18 - theapocalipz (09/19/2011) [-]
You're an awesome person!
User avatar #20 to #19 - simplescience (09/19/2011) [-]
Thank you very much. So are you and so is the b.rony community. :)
#8 - simplescience (09/19/2011) [-]
Thank you very much for this. I definitely was not expecting this. xD

It's inspired me to maybe upload some more stuff. Thanks a bunch. :)
#16 to #8 - kesolukt ONLINE (09/19/2011) [-]
Always a pleasure to make others smile.
User avatar #17 to #17 - simplescience (09/19/2011) [-]
Well you have succeeded. Admirably. :) Thank you very much. ^_^
#7 - kesolukt ONLINE (09/19/2011) [-]
Love ya
User avatar #15 to #7 - simplescience (09/19/2011) [-]
Thank you very much. For everything. :)
#5 - SuperSixONE (09/19/2011) [-]
CONGRATS!
User avatar #19 to #5 - simplescience (09/19/2011) [-]
Thank you very much, whether you're referring to being chosen by the b.rony community or on my getting to the front page. I'm grateful for both. :)
User avatar #12 to #4 - simplescience (09/19/2011) [-]
This was very nice of all you guys. Thank you very much. :)
User avatar #3 - leed (09/19/2011) [-]
You!
Yes you!
You are awesome and you should feel awesome!
User avatar #11 to #3 - simplescience (09/19/2011) [-]
Thank you. This whole thing has made my day. :)
User avatar #2 - Bluecoolman (09/19/2011) [-]
I love you! You're FJer of the day
User avatar #9 to #2 - simplescience (09/19/2011) [-]
Thank you very much. :)
#1 - mazzyrazzy (09/19/2011) [-]
Hey :) You've been choosen randomly to receive the benefit of a new b.rony program, Helping Hooves, a program where a few of us pick a user at random and thumb up all their content and comments.
User avatar #10 to #1 - simplescience (09/19/2011) [-]
Thank you for this. I know my name just came up as a random roll, but still, this was very kind. :)
User avatar #13 to #10 - mazzyrazzy (09/19/2011) [-]
Our pleasure :P

We like to do nice stuff every once in a while.
 Friends (0)