Is This Even Possible?. he actually has guts to show in public after being owned in every possible way by Bill Nye. Creationist Ken 'delici'''? aliens are going
x
Click to expand

Is This Even Possible?

Is This Even Possible?. he actually has guts to show in public after being owned in every possible way by Bill Nye. Creationist Ken 'delici'''? aliens are going

he actually has guts to show in public after being owned in every possible way by Bill Nye

Creationist Ken 'delici'''?
aliens are going to
hell anyway
Creationist Ken Ham has said that
the US. space program is a waste of
money because any alien life that
scientists found would be damned
to hell.
I' m shocked at the countless
hundreds of millions of dollars that
have been spent over the years in
the desperate !virii' ril fruitless search
for extraterrestrial life," Ham wrote
...
  • Recommend tagsx
+1315
Views: 45010
Favorited: 67
Submitted: 07/29/2014
Share On Facebook
Add to favorites Subscribe to katsra submit to reddit

Comments(296):

[ 296 comments ]
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
User avatar #67 to #44 - anniextittan (07/29/2014) [-]
That was back when he was Ajax XD
Still funny though
#41 - flexib (07/29/2014) [-]
>countless hundreds of millions
I wish, if that were true we would already have a public space station.
User avatar #61 to #41 - jokeface (07/29/2014) [-]
The NASA (National Aeronautic Space big brother administration) budget for FY 2015 is $17.5 billion. Congress appropriated slightly more, $17.6 billion, for FY 2014 (which runs from October 1, 2013 - September 30, 2014). Funding for both years are slightly higher than the $16.9 billion spent in FY 2013.

useconomy.about.com/od/usfederalbudget/p/nasa_budget_cost.htm
#261 to #61 - plaguehammer (07/30/2014) [-]
BUT IT'S NOT ENOUGH! Space exploration is probably the most worthwhile thing the Human race can strive towards along with world peace and end to all disease, NASA and all other space agencies should get significantly higher budgets!
User avatar #265 to #261 - jokeface (07/30/2014) [-]
I agree (about striving towards being more peaceful and finding cures and such). Funnily enough, though, the Book of Revelation says that war and disease will be two major aspects of the end of the world. Of course, that's not to say we shouldn't stave off such things as best we can, but it always breaks my heart to see someone aspire goals that, as admirable as they are, just won't ever fully come to fruition.
#269 to #265 - plaguehammer (07/30/2014) [-]
yeah but all figures are showing that the world has never been safer or more peaceful, it's just that the media doesn't like to report on the hundreds of places where there are no wars so you think everything is wars. I don't take much stock in prophecy, to me the single most important scientific discovery in the history of humanity would be finding extra-terrestrial, complex lifeforms. If they're sentient, even better. We need to figure out inter-stellar travel, there are theories and all that we need to test! Space man, it's the final frontier
User avatar #276 to #269 - jokeface (07/30/2014) [-]
Fair enough. I'm just excited for all the awesome future tech we're gonna get with the new minerals and other elements we're gonna find in space.
#147 to #41 - hickoryballs (07/30/2014) [-]
To be honest, as a Catholic, I wish assclowns like this guy would stop being the ones to get noticed. I mean, Christianity as a whole isn't about telling people that they are going to hell for liking science. I went to a Catholic school St.John Vienney if you care to look  that taught me a lot about science in general and really sparked my interest in things like geology, and that school was run by nuns. (VERY strict)    
And because of people like this guy that do what they do, there were kids in highschool that would actually be suprised I was aware of dinosaurs after finding I was Catholic.
To be honest, as a Catholic, I wish assclowns like this guy would stop being the ones to get noticed. I mean, Christianity as a whole isn't about telling people that they are going to hell for liking science. I went to a Catholic school St.John Vienney if you care to look that taught me a lot about science in general and really sparked my interest in things like geology, and that school was run by nuns. (VERY strict)
And because of people like this guy that do what they do, there were kids in highschool that would actually be suprised I was aware of dinosaurs after finding I was Catholic.



#118 - doctorprofessornv (07/30/2014) [-]
This man is a disgrace to both Christianity and the scientific community.
#193 to #118 - avyon (07/30/2014) [-]
of course he's a disgrace. he's a creationist.
#237 to #193 - deliciousdee ONLINE (07/30/2014) [-]
Creationists are to Christianity what militant atheists are to atheism.
Creationists are to Christianity what militant atheists are to atheism.
#283 to #237 - Rascal (07/30/2014) [-]
That's a pretty bad comparison. One of them is just being annoying, while the other is clearly denying facts while being annoying. Which is worse?
User avatar #123 to #118 - redstonealchemist (07/30/2014) [-]
last i checked he doesn't even have a doctorate, scientist my left testicle
#144 to #123 - paintskillz (07/30/2014) [-]
Even better, he was given a honorary doctorate in "divinity" from a baptist college
Even better, he was given a honorary doctorate in "divinity" from a baptist college
User avatar #54 - gtocforyou (07/29/2014) [-]
>░░░░░░▄▀▒▒▒▒░░░░▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒ ▒▒█
>░░░░░█▒▒▒▒░░░░▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒ ▒▒▒█
>░░░░█▒▒▄▀▀▀▀▀▄▄▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▄▄ ▀▀▀▀▀▄
>░░▄▀▒▒▒▄█████▄▒█▒▒▒▒▒▒▒█▒▄ ████▄▒█
>░█▒▒▒▒▐██▄████▌▒█▒▒▒▒▒█▒▐█ ▄████▌▒█
>▀▒▒▒▒▒▒▀█████▀▒▒█▒░▄▒▄█▒▒▀ ████▀▒▒▒█
>▒▒▐▒▒▒░░░░▒▒▒▒▒█▒░▒▒▀▒▒█▒▒ ▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒█
>▒▌▒▒▒░░░▒▒▒▒▒▄▀▒░▒▄█▄█▄▒▀▄ ▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▌
>▒▌▒▒▒▒░▒▒▒▒▒▒▀▄▒▒█▌▌▌▌▌█▄▀ ▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▐
>▒▐▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▌▒▒▀███▀▒▌▒ ▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▌
>▀▀▄▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▌▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▐▒ ▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒█
>▀▄▒▀▄▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▐▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▄▄▄ ▒▒▒▒▒▒▄▄▀
>▒▒▀▄▒▀▄▀▀▀▄▀▀▀▀▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▀░░░ ▀▀▀▀▀▀
>▒▒▒▒▀▄▐▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▐
>░▄▄▄░░▄░░▄░▄░░▄░░▄░░░░▄▄░▄ ░░░▄▄▄░░░▄▄▄
>█▄▄▄█░█▄▄█░█▄▄█░░█░░░█░░█░ █░█▄▄▄█░█░░░█
>█░░░█░░█░░░░█░░░░█░░░█░░█░ █░█░░░█░█░░░█
>▀░░░▀░░▀░░░░▀░░░░▀▀▀░░░░░░ ░░▀░░░▀░▀▄▄▄▀
#1 - kokanum (07/29/2014) [-]
Leslie no!
#109 - solarisofcelestia (07/30/2014) [-]
Are we the North Korea of the galaxy?
User avatar #164 to #109 - Byte (07/30/2014) [-]
yep
#106 - sunnyday (07/30/2014) [-]
You see, it's not been long since I watched the debate, so his stupidity is still fresh in my mind.

The fact he calls himself a scientist is ******* laughable. He has literally ZERO desire to discover. He's got no drive to look for the answers to any of the mysteries we are faced with today. All because he thinks the answers are already in the ******* bible. Imagine if most scientists of the past were like that.

"This apple fell on my head when I was sleeping under the tree... God sure works in mysterious ways.

No.

**** you, Ken.
#100 - fishinyourface (07/30/2014) [-]
this man can't call himself a scientist. He's a 			*******		 disgrace.
this man can't call himself a scientist. He's a ******* disgrace.
#14 - Hightower ONLINE (07/29/2014) [-]
LOL NASA accounts for 1/2 of 1% of the total US budget.
If just his sect of his cult paid taxes for one year, NASA would be fully funded for the foreseeable future, without raising taxes on anyone or anything else. So until this assclown contributes a damn thing to society at large, he can STFU.
#19 to #14 - Rascal (07/29/2014) [-]
Like what, 5 promille?
#20 to #19 - Hightower ONLINE (07/29/2014) [-]
Did that comment make sense before you posted it?
#238 to #20 - Rascal (07/30/2014) [-]
5 promile = 0.5 procent
Pro-cent = per hundred
Pro-mile = per thousand
(but using it in this scenario is a tad lame)
#24 to #20 - Rascal (07/29/2014) [-]
Are you retarded?
User avatar #6 - dmirish (07/29/2014) [-]
This is the same guy who tried to make a biblical theme park complete with dinosaurs. Under the predication that man AND dinosaurs coexisted happily.

Watch Bill Maher's movie, Religulous. Awesome flick, and you'll see what I'm on about.
0
#121 to #6 - fapplejacks has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #132 to #6 - undeadwill (07/30/2014) [-]
I watched it liked it but I can not stand his editing from anyone, I don't care if I like what you have to say if you edit like that man edited his program then I will not listen to what someone like that has to say.
#239 to #6 - cockarse (07/30/2014) [-]
I saw Jesus in my couch. Your argument is invalid.
User avatar #243 to #239 - dmirish (07/30/2014) [-]
Could be Dave Navarro too.
User avatar #245 to #243 - cockarse (07/30/2014) [-]
Nope totally wasn't this shirt.
#23 to #6 - reteip (07/29/2014) [-]
Wasn't he also the nutjob who said that Tyrannosaurus Rex was vegetarian?
#200 to #23 - Rascal (07/30/2014) [-]
he said that just because T-Rex had sharp teeth that were best suited for tearing apart and eating meat it doesn't mean that that's what T-Rex ate
#235 to #6 - Rascal (07/30/2014) [-]
Except that "documentary" is more full of **** than Ken Ham.
#9 to #6 - katsra (07/29/2014) [-]
biblical theme park with dinsaurs REALLY
User avatar #16 to #9 - bobthedilder (07/29/2014) [-]
What, you didn't know the Earth is only 6,000 years old?
User avatar #52 to #16 - rdnyan (07/29/2014) [-]
i thought it was 2000?
User avatar #53 to #52 - bobthedilder (07/29/2014) [-]
You know, it's people like you that are ruining this world. I hope you don't reproduce you ******* retarded ******* faggot. For ****** sake the it's 2014,TWO-THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN, years old.
User avatar #63 to #53 - Ashtaroth (07/29/2014) [-]
That's America, dummy. The earth is 6000. America is 2014. said with my best herpaderp voice
User avatar #64 to #63 - rdnyan (07/29/2014) [-]
America didn't even exist before McDonalds, silly
User avatar #66 to #64 - Ashtaroth (07/29/2014) [-]
And the Lord came forth and spake, saying: "Behold!! I giveth thee McDonald's, that thou mighst grow large and immobile. And I also give you Murica, whereforth shall thee go to haveth thy McDonald's." And there was much rejoicing. yaaaaaay...
#68 to #66 - rdnyan (07/29/2014) [-]
bretty good
bretty good
#56 to #53 - rdnyan (07/29/2014) [-]
oh you got me there you silly ******
User avatar #11 to #9 - dmirish (07/29/2014) [-]
Really, I **** you not, my friend. This guya actually believes that man and dinosaurs lived together in harmony. If you watch Religulous, it shows a vignette of his museum. In it, are animatronic velociraptors playing alongside children. And Stegosaurs with saddles. It's straight up bizarre.
#40 to #11 - seventonblade (07/29/2014) [-]
Playing the devil's advocate here, according to the Book of Genesis, every animal, including humanity itself, prior to the Fall of Man was herbivorous and therefore had coexisted peacefully with no problems whatsoever, and it was only after that some of them gained carnivorous tendencies. This all happens prior to the Flood, by the way, which is what most creationists believe made the dinosaurs go extinct because they didn't board the ark. In truth, Ken Ham isn't going by anything scientifically evident (such as the dinosaurs' teeth), because to him, the Bible overrides anything and everything else said by man that may be contradictory to the Bible's word. Just take a look at the very bottom rule on his website's "Statement of Faith" page: answersingenesis.org/about/faith/
#84 to #40 - nonanonnon (07/30/2014) [-]
"By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record. "

Jesus Christ...
User avatar #48 to #40 - asasqw (07/29/2014) [-]
A carnivore is physically unable to digest plant matter
User avatar #60 to #48 - seventonblade (07/29/2014) [-]
As I said, he's not basing it off anything scientific. If anything, he probably believes that was once different as well.
User avatar #185 to #6 - chiktikkavaspaus (07/30/2014) [-]
I honestly do believe man and dinosaurs coexisted. How else did they film the flinstones?
#101 to #6 - Rascal (07/30/2014) [-]
I would if I didn't hate Bill Maher.

Guy is funny, but I hate his politics and fans.

Much prefer Steve Colbert, hell even Jon Stuart.

sorta unrelated, sorry if am dick
User avatar #105 to #101 - wilfredfanforever (07/30/2014) [-]
Jon Stewart and Bill Maher are actually good friends, they don't agree on everything but still get along. Bill Maher doesn't like religion and says it's just bad. Jon Stewart is a practicing Jew.
User avatar #252 to #105 - pokemonstheshiz (07/30/2014) [-]
That doesn't mean other people can't perceive Bill as a dick. What anon was trying to say is that Bill Maher is very blatantly anti-religious and annoying about it (think Ricky Gervais, but with a political show), whereas Jon and Colbert are much less so, despite being on comedy political shows that often make fun of religion/religious people.
User avatar #267 to #252 - wilfredfanforever (07/30/2014) [-]
You know what, you're right.
0
#169 to #105 - jacksonrhoads has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #170 to #169 - wilfredfanforever (07/30/2014) [-]
Could of sworn he said he was Jewish
User avatar #173 to #170 - jacksonrhoads (07/30/2014) [-]
He was born jewish, but he definitely has renounced it
#51 to #6 - theruse (07/29/2014) [-]
DINOSAUR THEME PARK!?!?! NOOOO! HAS HE LEARNED NOTHING!?!?!
#15 to #6 - Hightower ONLINE (07/29/2014) [-]
He didn't try, he did. It's called the Creation Museum. Now he's trying to build a Noah's Ark theme park, and is asking the state of Kentucky to help foot the bill.
I wish I was joking.
User avatar #58 to #6 - theodordronen (07/29/2014) [-]
Just a sidenote, his movie isn't all right either. You need to login to view this link
User avatar #166 to #58 - calawesome ONLINE (07/30/2014) [-]
like sixty percent of everything bill maher says is full of crap.
#71 - skrynox (07/29/2014) [-]
Why are there thousands of Christians out there that don't believe in the science that God created?   
   
I'm a Christian and it's 			*******		 obvious as hell that dinosaurs existed and the Earth is indeed 4 billion years old.
Why are there thousands of Christians out there that don't believe in the science that God created?

I'm a Christian and it's ******* obvious as hell that dinosaurs existed and the Earth is indeed 4 billion years old.
User avatar #168 to #71 - yaybacon (07/30/2014) [-]
Catholic here and I fully agree with you.
User avatar #199 to #71 - testaburger (07/30/2014) [-]
>cherrypicking
#88 to #71 - Rascal (07/30/2014) [-]
i didnt find out that some christians didnt believe in dinosaurs until last year. i was dumbfounded. some christians follow it like its 300 AD
#95 to #88 - Rascal (07/30/2014) [-]
because it'd be foolish to believe EVERYTHING written in such a old book, right? right??
User avatar #133 to #71 - undeadwill (07/30/2014) [-]
Most Christians are followers not philosophers.
User avatar #270 to #133 - sspacecore (07/30/2014) [-]
Most Christians are not as bad/stupid as they are made out to be on the internet.
User avatar #297 to #270 - undeadwill (07/30/2014) [-]
I agree but the thing is most Christians are followers of Christ not philosophers to try and understand the full nature of his work because so much is accepted on faith because to try understand the full nature of god is difficult and often confusing.
User avatar #298 to #297 - sspacecore (07/30/2014) [-]
I do agree with all of that, but another factor that is often overlooked is the social repercussions that one would face in a community of blind followers if they tried to question how things work.
User avatar #299 to #298 - undeadwill (07/31/2014) [-]
Many are is it the problem with any ideal being spread on a large enough scale. People will just accept it and not apply logic,
User avatar #300 to #299 - sspacecore (07/31/2014) [-]
exactly.
User avatar #195 to #71 - sphincterface ONLINE (07/30/2014) [-]
I'm a Christian as well, and I also believe in evolution. There are just some things in science that have so much evidence that it is impossible to argue against it. I honestly think science and religion go together perfectly.
#73 to #71 - Rascal (07/29/2014) [-]
Probably because it seems weird to pick and choose which parts of the Bible you believe. Why should one bit be more valid than the next?
#266 to #73 - BloodyTurds ONLINE (07/30/2014) [-]
>why should 1 part be more valid than the next?
Because there is strong evidence suggesting that the next bit is false?

The bible isnt the word of god, but rather mans interpretation of it; And if there is one thing man is good at, its miss-interpreting things...

Not to mention that a lot of the information in the bible is probably just common beliefs at the time, rather than something said directly to the author by someone divine...
User avatar #107 to #73 - friedgreenpomatoes (07/30/2014) [-]
Protestant belief is that much of the bible is like a Persona boss.

it's symboliiiiic
User avatar #104 to #71 - fishinyourface (07/30/2014) [-]
there's no reason why the two can't coexist. I believe in God, and I accept fully what science has to say happened. If anything it's more logical really...
#89 to #71 - kwanzalord (07/30/2014) [-]
Though I dislike organized religion, I hate to attack anyone.   
   
To avoid a 			****		 storm, I usually just tell people that the bible was written by man and changed by man.   
Therefore, they are bound to be mistakes.   
And so, science isn't saying that God is wrong, but just that the man made bible is wrong.
Though I dislike organized religion, I hate to attack anyone.

To avoid a **** storm, I usually just tell people that the bible was written by man and changed by man.
Therefore, they are bound to be mistakes.
And so, science isn't saying that God is wrong, but just that the man made bible is wrong.
User avatar #80 to #62 - strigt (07/30/2014) [-]
He's Baptist. The Pope means nothing to them.
User avatar #275 to #80 - sspacecore (07/30/2014) [-]
Wait this guy is baptist? Well **** , way to make the rest of us look bad, Ken.
But on the topic of the Pope, even though he is technically only the leader of the catholic church, most Christians who aren't ignorant ******** think of him as the leader of Christianity in general, no matter their personal denomination.
#122 - redstonealchemist (07/30/2014) [-]
but they're already here...
but they're already here...
#124 - donmakemehlaf (07/30/2014) [-]
Proven extraterrestrial, sentient life would unequivocally disprove Genesis. Even basic single cell life would put a serious turd in the punch bowl of Christianity.
Proven extraterrestrial, sentient life would unequivocally disprove Genesis. Even basic single cell life would put a serious turd in the punch bowl of Christianity.
User avatar #137 to #124 - TheFixer (07/30/2014) [-]
how would it disprove genesis. I may not study the bible on a regular occasion but from what I do remember I don't recall it saying "on the 5th day God created life only on earth and no where else in the universe that he just created a few days before this."
I do remember it saying he created light thought it was good, created the heavens thought they were good, created the earth thought it was good, created life thought it was good, created day and night thought it was good, rested on the 7th day and I forgot the 6th thing maybe man or water I don't remember.
User avatar #142 to #124 - paintskillz (07/30/2014) [-]
The sad part is whenever part of the bible is proven wrong, christians make excuses and say that it was only symbolic. Word of god my ass.
User avatar #198 to #124 - testaburger (07/30/2014) [-]
>implying christians wouldn't figure out a way to shoehorn aliens into their mythology
#128 - psychadelicsnake (07/30/2014) [-]
>Gets his ass handed to him by bill nye   
>Embarrasses himself during the whole debate   
>Makes a bigger embarrassment of himself by pulling this stunt
>Gets his ass handed to him by bill nye
>Embarrasses himself during the whole debate
>Makes a bigger embarrassment of himself by pulling this stunt
#241 to #128 - Rascal (07/30/2014) [-]
And still a ******* of people bibletards applaud for that man, even in the comment section under that video
disclaimer: with Bibletards I mean those who think as Ken Ham does... "There is a boo..." GO ******* KILL YOURSELF
#25 - ninjabadger (07/29/2014) [-]
This guy makes us look like a retarded species.
This guy makes us look like a retarded species.
#31 to #25 - AnonymousDonor (07/29/2014) [-]
lets face it mate

we are a retarded species

extremely so
and believe it or not, he aint draggin us down by much
#34 to #31 - ninjabadger (07/29/2014) [-]
Some of us strive for greatness, we're not all at that low of a level...   
   
And the progress we've made in these past few decades is a testament to what we're capable of as a species. We just have to work out the social kinks, is all.    
   
A chain is as weak as its weakest link, that is certain... but the strongest links will remain undamaged... and with that a new chain is formed.
Some of us strive for greatness, we're not all at that low of a level...

And the progress we've made in these past few decades is a testament to what we're capable of as a species. We just have to work out the social kinks, is all.

A chain is as weak as its weakest link, that is certain... but the strongest links will remain undamaged... and with that a new chain is formed.
#42 to #34 - AnonymousDonor (07/29/2014) [-]
still gonna have to disagree with you there   
   
lets start with a gaussian population set along an axis of...actually no nvm you're not gonna follow my figures anyway and i dont feel like looking up statistics   
   
lemme start over with your definition of greatness. most humans strive only for sociological and political greatness, which, being useless and finite in the long run, lead me to assume that you refer to the only greatness that can be quantified - technological, scientific, and philosophical   
   
   
however a monkey "strives" for such greatness with the same vehemence as some humans. they craft makeshift poles, use boxes/surroundings as tools to reach their goals, etc.   
   
it doesnt make them any less retarded of a species   
   
the bottom line, obviously, as usual, is that its all relative   
"but we don't know any higher species so how can we..." no need.    
the only members of our own species who actually contribute to the advancement of technological, scientific, and philosophical "greatness" compose no more than 10% of the population (a very generous estimate), and they are of course the higher echelon of ... lets forego the idiotic concept of IQ and instead substitute "effective smartness"   
--in that relative placing alone, the majority of the species is by comparison retarded, but lets take it a step further   
   
you say our progress is a testament to what were capable of, but i disagree i dont think were even close to reaching an acceptable efficiency of capability, given our faculties to learn. i dunno what school you went to, but i sure as hell dont feel proud of the fact that it took four years of schooling before they decided i was ready to understand the concept of a decimal, or a negative number, or that we arent ready to quantify the concept of rates of change until high school. thats disgusting, because we already have a working knowledge of all three long before   
   
ive run out of space so suffice it to say, compared to where we should be as a species, we are retarded
still gonna have to disagree with you there

lets start with a gaussian population set along an axis of...actually no nvm you're not gonna follow my figures anyway and i dont feel like looking up statistics

lemme start over with your definition of greatness. most humans strive only for sociological and political greatness, which, being useless and finite in the long run, lead me to assume that you refer to the only greatness that can be quantified - technological, scientific, and philosophical


however a monkey "strives" for such greatness with the same vehemence as some humans. they craft makeshift poles, use boxes/surroundings as tools to reach their goals, etc.

it doesnt make them any less retarded of a species

the bottom line, obviously, as usual, is that its all relative
"but we don't know any higher species so how can we..." no need.
the only members of our own species who actually contribute to the advancement of technological, scientific, and philosophical "greatness" compose no more than 10% of the population (a very generous estimate), and they are of course the higher echelon of ... lets forego the idiotic concept of IQ and instead substitute "effective smartness"
--in that relative placing alone, the majority of the species is by comparison retarded, but lets take it a step further

you say our progress is a testament to what were capable of, but i disagree i dont think were even close to reaching an acceptable efficiency of capability, given our faculties to learn. i dunno what school you went to, but i sure as hell dont feel proud of the fact that it took four years of schooling before they decided i was ready to understand the concept of a decimal, or a negative number, or that we arent ready to quantify the concept of rates of change until high school. thats disgusting, because we already have a working knowledge of all three long before

ive run out of space so suffice it to say, compared to where we should be as a species, we are retarded
User avatar #45 to #42 - ninjabadger (07/29/2014) [-]
That's exactly why we're great...

With how many people are "slackers" and the inefficiency that you spoke of, we still made it this goddamn far. Have you seen that comic that depicts a man on the moon with Jesus and Satan debating on how they could even make fire (since they have a "orgasm switch at their fingertips")? The fact that we've made it so far without completely trying is mind boggling.

Imagine if humanity was 100% efficient? The possibilities...
#46 to #45 - AnonymousDonor (07/29/2014) [-]
in other words you would give the same argument for why a fatass who sits on his computer 24/7 beating off and playing games is "great" because once every year he takes out the trash?

i apologize for the reducto ad absurdum arguments, but im just not an optimist
i look at this world full of happy times and suffering and while i am not blind to the positive aspects, i can neither turn a blind eye to negatives - all the people who have suffered because everyone else wasn't working at their peak efficiency to make the world a place where we dont have to suffer because of lack of resources
.....i feel like its an insult to their memory to look back at all the disgusting things humanity continues to do out of sloth and gluttony and ....to just say "thats OKAY, were doing our best"?
it makes me sick sometimes

mind you, i am certainly a small part hypocrite myself. though a physical chemist currently helping to develop solar energy and attosecond laser technology, i too am wasting my time online for the moment
--and i hate myself for it
User avatar #78 to #46 - ninjabadger (07/29/2014) [-]
No that's not it at all, you're seeing the forest and not the trees.

I give no excuse for those who slack, the pride in humanity stems from those who take action. They take action, they make us as a species better. There is no subjective or objective way of looking at it, it's a simple fact. We're great from those who work hard and do good. Of course you can also say we're terrible because of those who don't... but in the end progress is progess.

Just because the majority ***** up, the minority that doesn't **** up makes up for it in the end... and I find that fascinating. As a people we are not worthless because of their efforts.

Individuals may perhaps be worthless in your eyes, but in the scope of things we are capable of a lot as a species because of individuals who are not worthless (in your eyes that is).
#90 to #78 - AnonymousDonor (07/30/2014) [-]
no because once again its only your (and my opinion)   
   
all you appear to be describing is a case of positives, neutrals, and negatives, all members of a population and so named based on contribution; yeah no 			****		 thats fact thats the most basic concept in the universe   
but your definition of whether or not they "make up for it" or "are worthless"  a word which, by the way, i never used  is entirely subjective   
   
how can anyone measure whether or not the little bit of progress brought about the few is "good enough" if not through some objective outer influence that we have yet to see? an alien invasion, an environmental cataclysmic disaster, a zombie apocalypse.......some form of objective hardship that tests whether our species has prepared enough to deserve the right to continue   
--when the happy neanderthals were driven extinct by the angry humans who struggled enough to make better technology, did they die happy knowing that the littly progress they made was still progress?   
--do you think the aztecs, as they were being slaughtered by the guns of cortez, stop to think "well guys it sucks that were dead but at least we built some pyramids!".......maybe some did, but the bottom line is they aint around to say it    
   
until something like that happens, its all speculation   
   
   
the only reason i am a pessimist is because i am so optimistic. i am optimistic about our future and our abilities as a race and i can see all the things we are capable of in the eyes of even our most "deficient". and when i see that and all the glorious life we could have had if we werent so 			*******		 lazy and greedy and etc. it makes me sick   
   
that may be the biggest difference between us. i dont think some people are just better than others and they alone have to shoulder the burden of carrying this 			****		 species to the top in the name of progress. everyone has this ability and the fact that 90% choose to believe that they dont is one of the very definitions of being retarded
no because once again its only your (and my opinion)

all you appear to be describing is a case of positives, neutrals, and negatives, all members of a population and so named based on contribution; yeah no **** thats fact thats the most basic concept in the universe
but your definition of whether or not they "make up for it" or "are worthless" a word which, by the way, i never used is entirely subjective

how can anyone measure whether or not the little bit of progress brought about the few is "good enough" if not through some objective outer influence that we have yet to see? an alien invasion, an environmental cataclysmic disaster, a zombie apocalypse.......some form of objective hardship that tests whether our species has prepared enough to deserve the right to continue
--when the happy neanderthals were driven extinct by the angry humans who struggled enough to make better technology, did they die happy knowing that the littly progress they made was still progress?
--do you think the aztecs, as they were being slaughtered by the guns of cortez, stop to think "well guys it sucks that were dead but at least we built some pyramids!".......maybe some did, but the bottom line is they aint around to say it

until something like that happens, its all speculation


the only reason i am a pessimist is because i am so optimistic. i am optimistic about our future and our abilities as a race and i can see all the things we are capable of in the eyes of even our most "deficient". and when i see that and all the glorious life we could have had if we werent so ******* lazy and greedy and etc. it makes me sick

that may be the biggest difference between us. i dont think some people are just better than others and they alone have to shoulder the burden of carrying this **** species to the top in the name of progress. everyone has this ability and the fact that 90% choose to believe that they dont is one of the very definitions of being retarded
#103 to #90 - ninjabadger (07/30/2014) [-]
Your earlier arguments leaned more towards a statement derived from those who don't contribute a lot... thus I assumed you were taking the stance you believe I have. I can assure you, I do not believe they (those who actively contribute to science and other progressive fields) should be shouldering that burden but the fact stands that they are the ones shouldering the burden of advancing humanity.    
   
I'm just saying as a whole we are good because of those who did good... we created weapons (this is terrible example, but its perfect to show progress) in Europe and Asia and conquered those who did not. As a people in it's entirety, humanity took a step up in the technological chain and we became more advanced. Whether or not the Aztecs were wiped out doesn't matter much in the big picture, the whole of humanity continued to flourish and grow from these events. I don't like saying that, but it is true. Man reaching the moon was another step up in humanity as are thousands of other inventions that we take for granted.    
   
I'm saying the generalization of humanity being "retarded" is an unfair accusation, because despite everything we do that is wrong we continue to prosper and advance... for how long I cannot say. Some of us grow content (most of us actually) with where we're at but others seek to help humanity progress. That is what makes us great, progress. Whether or not it is slow means little... it took life an exceptionally long time to become as advanced as it has become now on Earth... does that make it any less amazing?   
   
You are goddamn right we could be doing better, and honestly I think we should too... but we're doing a pretty decent job all things considered... we're still progressing after all.
Your earlier arguments leaned more towards a statement derived from those who don't contribute a lot... thus I assumed you were taking the stance you believe I have. I can assure you, I do not believe they (those who actively contribute to science and other progressive fields) should be shouldering that burden but the fact stands that they are the ones shouldering the burden of advancing humanity.

I'm just saying as a whole we are good because of those who did good... we created weapons (this is terrible example, but its perfect to show progress) in Europe and Asia and conquered those who did not. As a people in it's entirety, humanity took a step up in the technological chain and we became more advanced. Whether or not the Aztecs were wiped out doesn't matter much in the big picture, the whole of humanity continued to flourish and grow from these events. I don't like saying that, but it is true. Man reaching the moon was another step up in humanity as are thousands of other inventions that we take for granted.

I'm saying the generalization of humanity being "retarded" is an unfair accusation, because despite everything we do that is wrong we continue to prosper and advance... for how long I cannot say. Some of us grow content (most of us actually) with where we're at but others seek to help humanity progress. That is what makes us great, progress. Whether or not it is slow means little... it took life an exceptionally long time to become as advanced as it has become now on Earth... does that make it any less amazing?

You are goddamn right we could be doing better, and honestly I think we should too... but we're doing a pretty decent job all things considered... we're still progressing after all.
#110 to #103 - AnonymousDonor (07/30/2014) [-]
then once again i am forced to (again, personal opinion) criticize your standards of what you find amazing   
   
the fact that if progress happens at all  much like my earlier analogy of the fatass  it amazes you   
and is it amazing? of course   
the fact that life exists at all is pretty amazing and all the 			****		 the universe has in store is even more so   
   
but if we all were to take the same perspective that any progress is good enough, the sad truth is that we'd eventually become so content that nobody would be working toward progress at all    
   
   
i also must criticize your standard of humanity being retarded, since the mere fact that there is any progress (however slight) automatically makes us no longer retarded in your eyes; i.e. we must be in a net decrease of productivity to earn that title from you.  i could refer you to the dictionary definition of retarded or even simply the fact that mentally retarded children still learn, albeit a slower pace...but in the interest of bed i'll drop it instead   
   
   
as i've tried to add in i should think all but one of my responses, its only my opinion that we are just not progressing fast enough   
--i like to think that the fact that my opinion is based on the suffering of others (which might be alleviated if we progressed faster) does tend to add a bit more objective weight to my argument, but in the end it still is opinion   
   
you think the fact that we are eeking along at any positive pace of progression at all is something to be proud of. "a pretty decent job"    
and the bottom line is that i do not. i am the better of my peers in many fields because i keep telling myself "its not enough" because i know that somewhere there is always someone better, and if it were the case that the universe is populated by other intelligent life it would strongly behoove us to be the stronger and more virtuous of the two. to be better. or, at least, to be the best that we can, so nobody has to look back and think "could we have done more?"
then once again i am forced to (again, personal opinion) criticize your standards of what you find amazing

the fact that if progress happens at all much like my earlier analogy of the fatass it amazes you
and is it amazing? of course
the fact that life exists at all is pretty amazing and all the **** the universe has in store is even more so

but if we all were to take the same perspective that any progress is good enough, the sad truth is that we'd eventually become so content that nobody would be working toward progress at all


i also must criticize your standard of humanity being retarded, since the mere fact that there is any progress (however slight) automatically makes us no longer retarded in your eyes; i.e. we must be in a net decrease of productivity to earn that title from you. i could refer you to the dictionary definition of retarded or even simply the fact that mentally retarded children still learn, albeit a slower pace...but in the interest of bed i'll drop it instead


as i've tried to add in i should think all but one of my responses, its only my opinion that we are just not progressing fast enough
--i like to think that the fact that my opinion is based on the suffering of others (which might be alleviated if we progressed faster) does tend to add a bit more objective weight to my argument, but in the end it still is opinion

you think the fact that we are eeking along at any positive pace of progression at all is something to be proud of. "a pretty decent job"
and the bottom line is that i do not. i am the better of my peers in many fields because i keep telling myself "its not enough" because i know that somewhere there is always someone better, and if it were the case that the universe is populated by other intelligent life it would strongly behoove us to be the stronger and more virtuous of the two. to be better. or, at least, to be the best that we can, so nobody has to look back and think "could we have done more?"
#116 to #110 - ninjabadger (07/30/2014) [-]
Arguing won't really do much, but it was a pretty good one.   
   
Enjoy your sleep.
Arguing won't really do much, but it was a pretty good one.

Enjoy your sleep.

#117 to #116 - AnonymousDonor (07/30/2014) [-]
well when it comes to opinions theres nothing to argue    
   
peace
well when it comes to opinions theres nothing to argue

peace
#115 - xtremehivoltage (07/30/2014) [-]
As a devout christian I am disgusted.
As a devout christian I am disgusted.
User avatar #32 - konradkurze (07/29/2014) [-]
wasnt there some quote about a native american asking a missionary if one doesnt know about the religion can they go to hell....missionary said no...the the native said "then why would you tell me"

so how would aliens go to hell if they have no concept of it....unless looking at how bad earth is makes them consider here to be hell
User avatar #65 to #32 - jokeface (07/29/2014) [-]
"How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching?"

- Romans 10:14

No one can be saved without calling upon Jesus Christ. That quote (which was about an Eskimo, actually) is wrong, and it's not based on anything in the Bible.
#140 to #65 - paintskillz (07/30/2014) [-]
According to your logic, and by logic I mean anything but everyone who existed before Jesus would have gone to hell.
User avatar #146 to #140 - jokeface (07/30/2014) [-]
Yes, in a manner of speaking. Prior to Christ's resurrection, no human soul could ever go to heaven. But the place they went wasn't called hell, it was called She'ol (later translated into Greek as Hades). She'ol wasn't quite the same as what we think of hell as today, but it was indeed a place of eternal darkness and complete isolation from God.
User avatar #197 to #146 - konradkurze (07/30/2014) [-]
before the abrahamic religions there was no christian heaven. the older religions had their own places for the good and the bad
User avatar #201 to #197 - jokeface (07/30/2014) [-]
I'm talking about pre-Christianity Judaism.
User avatar #202 to #201 - konradkurze (07/30/2014) [-]
doesnt the jewish religion lack a hell?

if it does have one...all the zionists are ******
User avatar #208 to #202 - jokeface (07/30/2014) [-]
I don't know what modern Jews believe about hell. I'm basing my information on what the Bible says about the Jews of the Old Testament.
User avatar #210 to #208 - konradkurze (07/30/2014) [-]
welll....old testament jews were perfectly okay with murdering people for their faith, and took open revenge as a very serious thing

that eye for an eye thing was pretty much expected,,,,,forgiveness was seen as an odd thing
User avatar #214 to #210 - jokeface (07/30/2014) [-]
That's because forgiveness was the main novelty that Jesus introduced when He came along. You're right, killing and punishing in the name of God was the norm. Then Jesus showed up and said "Okay new rules. Love and forgiveness, all around. You forgive each other, and seek forgiveness from me, and I'll let you crash at my place after you croak." And some of the Jews were like "Yea, I can get on board with that. I'm in!" And they became Christians. But other Jews were like "Ehhh I'm not buying it." So they split up and Judaism continued to be a thing, but Christianity was also born.
User avatar #216 to #214 - konradkurze (07/30/2014) [-]
Jesus:
preaches love and tolerance
he was the original Brony

User avatar #220 to #216 - jokeface (07/30/2014) [-]
Sure.
#223 to #220 - konradkurze (07/30/2014) [-]
your name just made her song pop in my head

sing it

j-j-j-j-jokeface j-j-jokeface
User avatar #224 to #223 - jokeface (07/30/2014) [-]
Lol, yea it tends to have that effect on some people.
User avatar #149 to #146 - paintskillz (07/30/2014) [-]
Whoa slow down. So you're trying to tell me, that you believe not only in a heaven and a hell but also a place called She'ol. And the purpose of this temporary yet eternal She'ol place was only to satisfy a loophole in gods creation.
User avatar #155 to #149 - jokeface (07/30/2014) [-]
She'ol doesn't exist anymore. It was only pre-Jesus. Now there's just heaven and hell. I apologize for misusing the word "eternal". I just meant that from the perspective of the souls in She'ol, there was no end in sight.
User avatar #158 to #155 - paintskillz (07/30/2014) [-]
Oh okay man, well thanks for filling me in on the matter. While I may not share these beliefs I can respect them. After all, that's why they're called beliefs.
User avatar #160 to #158 - jokeface (07/30/2014) [-]
Just to clarify, there is still some debate, even within the Christian community, about the true nature of She'ol. Even this source I've been reading mentions conflicting speculations. So don't just take my word for it. There's a lot of information you can read on the subject. For reference, I've been using the following article:

www.gotquestions.org/sheol-hades-hell.html
User avatar #196 to #65 - konradkurze (07/30/2014) [-]
implying the bible is legit

User avatar #204 to #196 - jokeface (07/30/2014) [-]
For the purposes of this thread, we're assuming it is, so that we can analyze the above quote within a biblical context.
User avatar #207 to #204 - konradkurze (07/30/2014) [-]
well playing along with it as legit....everyone who sits on a toilet to **** is a sinner, people who say, wear denim jeans and a cotton tshirt (2 fabrics) are sinners.....every kid who got pissed off at the parents is a sinner....
User avatar #211 to #207 - jokeface (07/30/2014) [-]
Correct. Every single human that has ever existed on this planet, with the exception of Jesus, is a sinner.
User avatar #213 to #211 - konradkurze (07/30/2014) [-]
and people wonder why there are 'christians' who sail through monday-saturday sinning like **** as long as they go to church on sunday and pray

well if according to the bible....just waking up in the morning makes you a sinner so why not drink, do drugs, and **** random girls....
User avatar #217 to #213 - jokeface (07/30/2014) [-]
Some sins are just ingrained in our nature, like the 7 Deadly Sins, for example (among others). But there's tons of things that tempt us that we can avoid, like drunkenness, fornication, violence, etc. If we're able to resist sin, we should. But God knows we're far from perfect, and if we at least try to stay on the straight and narrow, He'll forgive our minor slip-ups. But we have to try. Otherwise we're basically spitting in His face.
User avatar #219 to #217 - konradkurze (07/30/2014) [-]
then theres the issue about apparently being gay is a sin

its like ....ummm. god made all men in his image...if a guy is born gay isnt that because god made him that way
User avatar #222 to #219 - jokeface (07/30/2014) [-]
God made Adam and Eve in His image. And they were straight. But when they sinned, they brought a curse upon the Earth, and their own species. So weird mutations started popping up that didn't always correlate with God's perfect design. And regardless, being attracted to the same sex doesn't mean you have to actually put that attraction into practice. The Lord's Prayer includes the line: "Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil." See, God knew we would be tempted by sin all our lives, but that temptation doesn't mean we must give in to all sin. If a person is "born gay" or whatever, all that means is that he or she will face a greater challenge than other people facing the temptation of sexual immorality.
User avatar #226 to #222 - konradkurze (07/30/2014) [-]
BUT for them to mutate it had to be part of gods creation that they could mutate
plus to pull up what you said...."god knew" means he knew it would happen, so that implies he built in the flaw of being able to sin for it to occur

plus it comes to...."why does mankind have to follow 'gods' rules when we have no proof that he exists or will do anything"

i do believe there are divine powers out there just not the abrahamic god systems ones....when i looked into christianity i was just ******* depressed all the time seeing sin everywhere and wondering how the other christians can be so retarded to ignore real life and focus only on happy **** ......

its only after i turned to Chaos that life made sense and got better......instead of feeling constant depression over an unproven faith i feel real strngth to live and prosper and i do feel the chaos gods with me
#77 to #65 - Rascal (07/29/2014) [-]
no no, it says by calling upon Jesus you CAN be saved, but not that you won't if you don't.
User avatar #81 to #77 - jokeface (07/30/2014) [-]
"Jesus answered, 'I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me'."

John 14:6
#93 to #81 - Rascal (07/30/2014) [-]
23 From there Elisha went up to Bethel. As he was walking along the road, some boys came out of the town and jeered at him. “Get out of here, baldy!” they said. “Get out of here, baldy!” 24 He turned around, looked at them and called down a curse on them in the name of the Lord. Then two bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the boys.

lol yeah you're right, here's my favourite part of the Bible where God murders a ton of kids
User avatar #96 to #93 - jokeface (07/30/2014) [-]
First of all, what does that have to do with what we were talking about? Second of all, I don't have a second of all but I like starting things off by saying "first of all".
#49 to #32 - sytheris (07/29/2014) [-]
Not all Christians agree. Many think you go to hell period if you're not converted.

It's all bull anyway.
#139 to #32 - Rascal (07/30/2014) [-]
Yeah manifest destiny my ass
[ 296 comments ]
Leave a comment
 Friends (0)