Upload
Login or register
Anonymous comments allowed.
asd
#199 - felixjarl ONLINE
Reply 0
(01/26/2013) [-]
This image has expired
#195 - jsrf
Reply +11
(01/26/2013) [-]
#194 - beerterror
Reply +2
(01/26/2013) [-]
When I see them idiots mixing methaphysics and physics I got sick to my stomach. I mean, wtf? Do you discuss growth of plants with a dentist? Science can't prove existence of the Higher Being, neither can it disprove it. And get the **** over it - you believe - go **** yourselves, you don't believe - right this way, same ******* direction. It's down to individual senses if you feel and assume something beyond or don't. I mean, science is our key to technical progress, why everyone starts bitching about God the same ******* minute?
When I see them idiots mixing methaphysics and physics I got sick to my stomach. I mean, wtf? Do you discuss growth of plants with a dentist? Science can't prove existence of the Higher Being, neither can it disprove it. And get the **** over it - you believe - go **** yourselves, you don't believe - right this way, same ******* direction. It's down to individual senses if you feel and assume something beyond or don't. I mean, science is our key to technical progress, why everyone starts bitching about God the same ******* minute?
#193 - gatsu
Reply +1
(01/26/2013) [-]
stool cory bro
stool cory bro
#187 - anon
Reply 0
(01/26/2013) [-]
Science can never be absolutely true. Before the 16C most of the scientific community thought the earth lay at the centre of the universe. A scientific theory will always be a theory.
#240 to #187 - herbolifee ONLINE
Reply 0
(01/26/2013) [-]
Before the 16C we had no way of knowing it, and it was never "true". Now however, we KNOW it's round because it's a FACT that we can prove.
#212 to #187 - anon
Reply 0
(01/26/2013) [-]
And religion will always be ********
#182 - jokeface
Reply +2
(01/26/2013) [-]
Meh. I believe in evolution but I feel like that was a weak statement. I could say the same applies to God but I'd get red-thumbed to oblivion.
#178 - therobawesome
Reply +1
(01/26/2013) [-]
The great thing about belief is that saying you do or don't believe in something doesn't change ****. Gravity doesn't give a **** about this ********* in the comments.
#176 - whitebuddha
Reply +13
(01/26/2013) [-]
Why'd somebody have to post this on a SATURDAY?!?! Now nobody on Funnyjunk is going to go outside because there's a ******* religion vs. science post.
#243 to #176 - herbolifee ONLINE
Reply +3
(01/26/2013) [-]
Yeah, because if this was never posted everyone'd go out instantly...
#191 to #176 - anon
Reply 0
(01/26/2013) [-]
like they were going outside anyway
#173 - flashcache
0
has deleted their comment [-]
#170 - icanflyy
-8
has deleted their comment [-]
#186 to #170 - desacabose
Reply +5
(01/26/2013) [-]
#185 to #170 - ninjasquirle
Reply 0
(01/26/2013) [-]
Like gravity, lets test it. Go jump off a bridge an see if you fly up.
#183 to #170 - anon
Reply 0
(01/26/2013) [-]
The word "theory" refers specifically to something that has been peer-reviewed and validated with sufficient concrete evidence for it to be safely considered an absolute fact.
An educated guess (and the word "educated" is important here) that has not undergone such confirmation is a hypothesis, not a theory, and such guesses are so regarded by the scientific community.
#168 - jimimij
Reply -1
(01/26/2013) [-]
Science has been completely wrong in the past (spontaneous generation, most of the darwinian model of macroevolution). It is simply a model to explain what is observed. If it was wrong in the past, it may very likely be wrong now. It is the height of arrogance to say that it is indisputable now.
#172 to #168 - anon
Reply 0
(01/26/2013) [-]
the darwinian model of macroevolution has held fairly consistently to be correct since its inception...
#179 to #172 - jimimij
Reply -1
(01/26/2013) [-]
I've read Origin. Genetics was not even a science at the time. There are limits to how much variation can occur. The theory that periods of mass mutation was responsible for the evolution of the species is the current (and somewhat less cohesive in my opinion) model. Basically, when part of a theory isn't backed up by testing and observation, the theory is either discarded or altered. Because there isnt a better theory for the species, the evolutionary theory is constantly being altered to meet new observation.
#202 to #179 - figosound
Reply 0
(01/26/2013) [-]
False: evolution was observed and proved many times, even in a human temporal scale. STFU and go fap, it's better for you.
#485 to #202 - jimimij
Reply -2
(01/27/2013) [-]
You dont even understand the theories you so wholeheartedly believe. You didnt even argue, you just attacked my intellegence.

You, sir, are a jackass.
#156 - englman
Reply +69
(01/26/2013) [-]
Something I wrote on FJ a while back, it's relevant so I'm going to paste it here.   
   
"Science doesn't try to disprove God or Religion. People futilely attempt to do this and use Science as the tool. Then Science ends up getting blamed, when the true culprit is the person. The relationships between War and Religion tend to share a similar problem. "All wars are started be some Religion! They should all be abolished!". This may appear correct at first glance, but it's deeper than that. Ignorance (intolerance, nonacceptance, and many other words fall under this type of "Ignorance") is what actually causes most, if not all, War. To put it simply, "You don't hold my opinion on _______, so I'm going to kill you."    
   
Back to the main point though. Science and Religion are both tools with distinct 'properties' that can be used differently. Science is more concrete, while Religion is more interpretive. This allows for some flexibility, because you can use them together in many different ways. Without making this a 7 page paper, though, I'll just give one example that I believe clears up what I mean.    
   
Love is essentially just a series of Biochemical interactions between two people, with a dash of Psychology/Sociology.    
Does knowing that make love any less 'magical' or 'special' though?    
   
One Scientist might say "Yes, this is how it works and it shows our interactions to be nothing more than complex Chemistry."    
   
The second Scientist might say "No, understanding how it works doesn't make it any less valid. Our concept of love still exists, but now we know how it works."    
   
Now, which one is correct?    
Big finish... It's ultimately a matter of opinion."
Something I wrote on FJ a while back, it's relevant so I'm going to paste it here.

"Science doesn't try to disprove God or Religion. People futilely attempt to do this and use Science as the tool. Then Science ends up getting blamed, when the true culprit is the person. The relationships between War and Religion tend to share a similar problem. "All wars are started be some Religion! They should all be abolished!". This may appear correct at first glance, but it's deeper than that. Ignorance (intolerance, nonacceptance, and many other words fall under this type of "Ignorance") is what actually causes most, if not all, War. To put it simply, "You don't hold my opinion on _______, so I'm going to kill you."

Back to the main point though. Science and Religion are both tools with distinct 'properties' that can be used differently. Science is more concrete, while Religion is more interpretive. This allows for some flexibility, because you can use them together in many different ways. Without making this a 7 page paper, though, I'll just give one example that I believe clears up what I mean.

Love is essentially just a series of Biochemical interactions between two people, with a dash of Psychology/Sociology.
Does knowing that make love any less 'magical' or 'special' though?

One Scientist might say "Yes, this is how it works and it shows our interactions to be nothing more than complex Chemistry."

The second Scientist might say "No, understanding how it works doesn't make it any less valid. Our concept of love still exists, but now we know how it works."

Now, which one is correct?
Big finish... It's ultimately a matter of opinion."
#463 to #156 - raikun
Reply +1
(01/27/2013) [-]
That's just your opinion though. But i like it!
#455 to #156 - cjasper
Reply +1
(01/27/2013) [-]
thank you for this
thank you for this
#414 to #156 - kingpokerface
Reply +1
(01/27/2013) [-]
Perfect. To quote one of my favorite books "Science questions how , Religion asks why?"
#344 to #156 - pwincesswoona
Reply +1
(01/27/2013) [-]
that is pretty great. what user came up with it?
#501 to #349 - pwincesswoona
Reply +1
(01/27/2013) [-]
ah. thanks. :3 i read the first part wrong. i thought you said something i saw instead of wrote. thanks!
#505 to #501 - englman
Reply 0
(01/28/2013) [-]
You're very welcome:)
#279 to #156 - anon
Reply 0
(01/27/2013) [-]
But there clearly isn't a God lol.
#280 to #279 - englman
Reply +3
(01/27/2013) [-]
That's definitely your opinion alright.
#214 to #156 - retributionthepimp
Reply +2
(01/26/2013) [-]
englman for president of the world!
#218 to #214 - englman
Reply +1
(01/26/2013) [-]
Haha! Thanks for that friend, I'm flattered
#211 to #156 - anon
Reply 0
(01/26/2013) [-]
Did you major in philosophy or something?
#215 to #211 - englman
Reply +1
(01/26/2013) [-]
Lol I'm flattered but no, I just think about this stuff 24//7. It drives me insane sometimes.
#205 to #156 - thedeadlypajamas
Reply +3
(01/26/2013) [-]
Thank you for this.
Thank you for this.
#206 to #205 - englman
Reply +2
(01/26/2013) [-]
You're welcome friend :) glad you enjoyed.
You're welcome friend :) glad you enjoyed.
#171 to #156 - whatevsnicktrololo
Reply +4
(01/26/2013) [-]
Wow man, these kind of statements stay with me for a lifetime. Even in 10 years, I am pretty sure that this what i read now will affect my opinion on some matter eventually. Well said man, well said.
#175 to #171 - englman
Reply +4
(01/26/2013) [-]
Comments like yours have the same effect on me and push me to continue/strive to do better:) thank you friend, I greatly appreciate your comment.

I hope you have a great day!
#180 to #175 - whatevsnicktrololo
Reply +2
(01/26/2013) [-]
Likewise sir!
#160 to #156 - purealterego
Reply +3
(01/26/2013) [-]
can i hug you?
#162 to #160 - englman
Reply +5
(01/26/2013) [-]
We can sure as heck try friend:D
We can sure as heck try friend:D
#158 to #156 - curlyhairedgoddess
Reply +1
(01/26/2013) [-]
THANK YOU!
#159 to #158 - englman
Reply 0
(01/26/2013) [-]
Thanks, I'm glad you enjoyed it:)
#154 - niralius
Reply 0
(01/26/2013) [-]
lol the ********* one can create so easily in these kinds of posts, my experiment was a success! (comment #18)
#146 - didactus
Reply +5
(01/26/2013) [-]
Comment Picture
#140 - tacblack
Reply +11
(01/26/2013) [-]
"Theories" are actually equivalent to a hypothesis which as a **** ton of evidence. Gravity is a theory. There's the cell theory and of course the evolutionary theory. Though the evolutionary theory may be true it doesn't disprove god. Of course you can't prove that god exists either.    
   
This is why the whole issue comes down to "faith." You can choose to have faith or not. As long as people who have faith don't try to force others to believe that they're right, then we can live harmoniously. The same applies to people who don't have faith. We shouldn't be trying to convince anybody of anything. Let people believe what they want.
"Theories" are actually equivalent to a hypothesis which as a **** ton of evidence. Gravity is a theory. There's the cell theory and of course the evolutionary theory. Though the evolutionary theory may be true it doesn't disprove god. Of course you can't prove that god exists either.

This is why the whole issue comes down to "faith." You can choose to have faith or not. As long as people who have faith don't try to force others to believe that they're right, then we can live harmoniously. The same applies to people who don't have faith. We shouldn't be trying to convince anybody of anything. Let people believe what they want.
#207 to #140 - anon
Reply 0
(01/26/2013) [-]
I absolutely agree with most of what you said, but I have to point out that gravity is considered a principle, since it can and has been proven. Theories, by definition, have enough evidence to be considered true, but can't technically be proven.
#181 to #140 - acvirtutis
Reply 0
(01/26/2013) [-]
While it is true you can't disprove god, if he did exist, you could certainly prove it. If he came down from heaven and proved his power I'm pretty sure that would prove his existence.
#197 to #181 - ninjasquirle
Reply 0
(01/26/2013) [-]
This is where the imaginary flying tea kettle and the flying spaghetti monster come from. Also sometimes called "god of the gaps", it boils down to a metaphysical argument for an extraunviersal being is irrelevant because we don't know anything near that and anything said on the topic is just belief and here say.
#148 to #140 - anon
Reply 0
(01/26/2013) [-]
.........did you seriously just say hypotheses and theories are the same?
#149 to #148 - tacblack
Reply +1
(01/26/2013) [-]
No I didn't. I said theories are hypothesis with a massive amount of evidence. Which is true.
#152 to #149 - anon
Reply 0
(01/26/2013) [-]
A hypothesis is a presupposed truth which is to be determined to be true. A theory is a truth that is the summation of given evidence. They aren't both explanations. Gravity is a summation of the laws of gravitation, evolution is a summation of genetic variation. A hypothesis would be that if I dropped a ball, it would fall. I would test it and find it to be an accurate assumption and incorporate that into a theory.
#155 to #152 - tacblack
Reply 0
(01/26/2013) [-]
Basically my point is that a theory has a ton of evidence behind it. Contrary to the belief that theories are basically not true or still in the works.
#157 to #155 - anon
Reply 0
(01/26/2013) [-]
Well that's just the thing, though. Theories aren't supported by evidence, they are the evidence, or the real world expressions thereof to be precise.
#147 to #140 - Faz
Reply +2
(01/26/2013) [-]
But its not as simple as saying let people believe what they want when told blatant lies (like creationism) because it was said by people thousands of years ago who didn't now what they were talking about. Believing in God is one thing because like you said it cant be disproved but things which have been and can be disproved shouldn't be taught as fact.
#380 to #147 - wadethegreat
Reply 0
(01/27/2013) [-]
why do you say that creationism is a blatant lie man? i personaly believe in god and evolution.. both make sense to me and both are accepted by me. and if you all are thinking that man am i a ******* retard just think... god might have just created the universe and watched us grow from single celled organisms to what we are today along with helping us along the evolutionary way and if you think about it and read the bible at the beggining you will remember that god had created heaven and earth in 7 days but he waited for everything to evolve to what it is!
#389 to #380 - Faz
Reply +1
(01/27/2013) [-]
Creationism is a blatant lie because its the polar opposite to evolution, evolution has a overwhelming amount of evidence where as creationism doesn't have any. Also the bible doesn't state that God waited for us to evolve, it just says he created us, since the bible is supposed to be the word of God written by man why would God leave out such an important thing? Wouldn't an all powerful all knowing creature know that we would disprove his words?
#393 to #389 - wadethegreat
Reply +1
(01/27/2013) [-]
oh but i should mention that the bible dosnt state any evidence of evolution because god did not describe how he made us but who are we to say what god did or did not do, because we will never no till we die and we sure cant some back after we learn what did happend
#397 to #393 - Faz
Reply 0
(01/27/2013) [-]
"So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them." Unless God is a singled cell organism (that in which we started off as) the bible has a little lie right there.
#400 to #397 - wadethegreat
Reply 0
(01/27/2013) [-]
im not saying god was or is a single celled organism and god is problably devoid of gender but all i was stating was my opinion like it or not its there but i dont really want to argue
#408 to #400 - Faz
Reply 0
(01/27/2013) [-]
Oh no sorry i wasn't trying to argue, its just you said it didn't describe how God created us but it actually does. In my opinion though the likely hood of a God isn't that far fetched, its something which may be a possibility but again just in my opinion no current world religion has got it right, they all have aspects which have been disproved and a God creature being all knowing and all powerful wouldn't get anything wrong.
#416 to #408 - wadethegreat
Reply 0
(01/27/2013) [-]
again you show trueknowlage and are very well put with your statments sir and you shall eventual be put at top comment "HE WHO IS WITHOUT QUESTIONS CAST THE FIRST RED THUMB!"
#420 to #416 - Faz
Reply +1
(01/27/2013) [-]
Haha, well thank you, its been a delight chatting.
#423 to #420 - wadethegreat
Reply +1
(01/27/2013) [-]
*roll tipping hat meme* and with you sir ( by the way im tipping my real hat to you as well
#391 to #389 - wadethegreat
Reply +1
(01/27/2013) [-]
very good point sir thank you for informing me... a thumb for your service to are world
#151 to #147 - tacblack
Reply 0
(01/26/2013) [-]
If these are lies are falsified then I do agree. There's no point in teaching blatant lies.
#145 to #140 - zonedguru
Reply -9
(01/26/2013) [-]
LOL NO ATHEISM IZ BEST EVOLUTION IS KING CUZ I IS SMART NOW FROM MONKEY YESTERDAY
#150 to #145 - anon
Reply 0
(01/26/2013) [-]
Atheism does not entail evolution, though it is the best argument available if you won't subscribe to creation.
#137 - sirchopchop
Reply 0
(01/26/2013) [-]
There's still more evidence for evolution than there is God

Both cannot be proven, but it's just like hearing a rumor for an upcoming game. You could go to a reliable place like Joystiq, or you can go on a fan-blog.
#144 to #137 - jamesisawesome
Reply +1
(01/26/2013) [-]
That's the best analogy I've heard regarding the subject.
#134 - robopuppy
Reply +26
(01/26/2013) [-]
#93 - thewellhungarian
Reply +37
(01/26/2013) [-]
MFW I see the comments section.
MFW I see the comments section.
#89 - mandasawsum
Reply +12
(01/26/2013) [-]
Me and my roommate at VMI taking a picture with the man himself
#108 to #89 - nucularwar
Reply +33
(01/26/2013) [-]
I bet he gets sick of that
#201 to #108 - mandasawsum
Reply 0
(01/26/2013) [-]
Honestly? Not really! We went up to him and he did it before we even asked, then shook our hands and thanked us for our service. Good Guy Neil.