Upload
Login or register
Anonymous comments allowed.
asd
#296 - bulletone
Reply +3
(02/11/2014) [-]
Look's like you're the Science Guy now.
#291 - anon
Reply 0
(02/11/2014) [-]
theyre both morons because they have apple computers
#286 - limned
Reply +11
(02/11/2014) [-]
appropriate?
appropriate?
#310 to #286 - sylvanio
Reply 0
(02/11/2014) [-]
Saved
#280 - kiratheunholy
Reply +14
(02/11/2014) [-]
To all the ********** in the comments below   
   
This content has nothing to do with Atheism vs Christianity, it's making fun of how badly Ken Ham lost a debate against Bill Nye.
To all the ********** in the comments below

This content has nothing to do with Atheism vs Christianity, it's making fun of how badly Ken Ham lost a debate against Bill Nye.
#326 to #280 - markthemarksman
Reply +1
(02/11/2014) [-]
See? Now this comment is helpful. Without having watched the debate, one wouldn't know exactly what it was mocking.
#278 - kiratheunholy
0
has deleted their comment [-]
#249 - skinnypanda
Reply +13
(02/11/2014) [-]
What I don't understand is and I know there are people out there who agree with me.

Why can't there be science and God at the same time?

Why does it have to be one or the other?

Couldn't God have created the big bang? Couldn't God have created the universe in a way that evolution is perfectly feasible?

Or do we have to take scriptures possibly written analogically 5000 years ago so literally?
#342 to #249 - lolibear
Reply 0
(02/11/2014) [-]
You are talking about theism in general. There is nothing wrong with theism, and really no proof can go either way. Creationism, the subject of the debate specifically states that god "created" the earth less than a couple of millennia ago.
#307 to #249 - daemascus
Reply 0
(02/11/2014) [-]
I don't understand how people can change their religious views to adapt around new scientific evidence. Like things in the bible are blatantly wrong and have been proven wrong but people say that it was still god, just that he used these facts(like tectonic plates) as tools. Honestly Christianity is not what it was 2000 years ago, people just keep changing beliefs to adapt to new social structures and new discoveries. Saying science and religion can go hand in hand is idiotic when the two directly contradict each other.
I don't understand how people can change their religious views to adapt around new scientific evidence. Like things in the bible are blatantly wrong and have been proven wrong but people say that it was still god, just that he used these facts(like tectonic plates) as tools. Honestly Christianity is not what it was 2000 years ago, people just keep changing beliefs to adapt to new social structures and new discoveries. Saying science and religion can go hand in hand is idiotic when the two directly contradict each other.
#382 to #307 - obsidicus
Reply 0
(02/11/2014) [-]
I understand what you are thinking, how can people change their opinions on religious matters when the Bible clearly says the opposite happened.

When I believed that way, I missed one crucial part of that. The Bible doesn't clearly say. There are so many language differences, historical differences, cultural differences, and interpretation differences. Christians all have the same Bible and yet there are hundreds of denominations and hundreds of different versions of the same Bible that say completely different things. The original King James version has unicorns in it.
#413 to #382 - daemascus
Reply 0
(02/11/2014) [-]
I might become a christian if it confirms the existence of unicorns
I might become a christian if it confirms the existence of unicorns
#323 to #307 - Nameloc
Reply +1
(02/11/2014) [-]
Religion isn't what it was 2,000 years ago.

Then, sacrificing was common practice among many religions.
Now, it's safe to say that sacrificing is more scarce than it was then.

Times change, as do people and their opinions and beliefs.
And actually, time is the only thing that can change someone's opinions.
Namely, a person's opinions are rock solid. For instance:

If I were to grow to like this girl, Stacy, in my class, then that would be my biased viewpoint of her as a potential mate.
Now, if my friend were to try and convince me that Stacy isn't right for me and I should stray away from her, of course I wouldn't want to recognize this, and nor would I instantly change my mind on her.

Now, replace Stacy with an opinion/ belief on how everything came to be, replace the 'potential mate' aspect with how great their belief is, and replace me with any general person. That is how people are with religious viewpoints, and how they would react to someone trying to immediately alter their viewpoint.

The point is that having a simple conversation with someone and saying that their belief is completely invalidated is redundant because you're going nowhere. Their belief started before you could play a role in it's direction, and ultimately you just have to leave the person to change their opinions as they will.

So if people are changing their beliefs and altering it at will, then you can't really do anything. The best you can do is try to understand where they are coming from and why.
#304 to #249 - newsuperyoshi
Reply +1
(02/11/2014) [-]
That's actually how I've always though. 'Let there be light', we can assume that something on the level of the Big Bang would cause a lot of light, given God created the Earth, God would be responsible for Darwin's theory of Natural Selection, also, it covers for Modern Cell Theory's flaw with contradicting any possible Absolute Genesis of Life (would have to be abiotic).
#290 to #249 - bleachedpheather
Reply +4
(02/11/2014) [-]
the thing of it is, there is no proof of god. but at the same time there is no proof against god. but most scientist will go off of what they know, what they have proved. but almost all scientist agree, if there ever was proof, if anyone ever found real proof, then they would all admit they were wrong about not believing.
#260 to #249 - anon
Reply 0
(02/11/2014) [-]
who created god?
#380 to #260 - obsidicus
Reply 0
(02/11/2014) [-]
you're assuming that time existed before God, which I don't believe is true. If God created time, then He would exist before time began. While the Bible doesn't explicitly say God created time but it does describe Him as timeless, everlasting, and beyond the reaches of time which would make sense if He created time, like a potter creates a pot.
#305 to #260 - newsuperyoshi
Reply 0
(02/11/2014) [-]
Where did the Point of Light of Compression of the Universe (Point of Light from the Big Bang Theory) originate?
#302 to #260 - godofcorndog
Reply 0
(02/11/2014) [-]
We did. Religion is a social construct. Just like government. It exists because we say so, and it stops existing the moment we say so.
#256 to #249 - anon
Reply 0
(02/11/2014) [-]
This guy gets it.
#255 to #249 - elcreepo
Reply +1
(02/11/2014) [-]
I agree.

I honestly think that the two fields need to stop attacking each other. One is personal and another is trying to find answers, both solve a need in human nature to understand/be comforted by something.

Yet both can't stop ******* screaming at each other long enough to realize that neither side has any business with the other, except in terms of compromise.
#254 to #249 - icefried
Reply +7
(02/11/2014) [-]
Whether or not there is a God was not the point of the debate, it was to determin the viability of creationism in a modern world.
#253 to #249 - lolfire
Reply +5
(02/11/2014) [-]
Because we cannot call what we don't know, god.

If science just called what it couldn't figure out, god, then we would still be in the dark ages.
#312 to #253 - Nameloc
Reply 0
(02/11/2014) [-]
But in saying that, it implies too much on all religious types.

I can understand your point of view, but I really think it's basing off of a vast amount of vague stereotypes too much.
It really depends on the person, in this case.

Each person varies vastly, as do sub-religions.
And that's where things start to get complicated on your standpoint; With each sub-religion, there's more and more variation on beliefs.
For instance, Catholicism is a form of Christianity, as is Protestantism, however both are completely different.
This and the fact that each church also varies differently from the next; So one Protestant church in one city could have varied beliefs than a Protestant church in the next.
Then, if you want to simplify whole-religions into basic views/ titles, you have:
Deism
Theism
Monotheism
etc.

Therefore, your point is somewhat invalidated since it doesn't necessarily confine a specific religion/ sub-religion/ religious stereotype. I suppose in this case, having some experience first hand with people of the like -- that are ready to say everything is because of God and shrug it off -- would greatly benefit and aid your point, especially if you are able to have a conversation with them and understand their exact belief and why they believe it. Never have to be in a debate; In fact, talking about religion can be pretty easy with someone as long as you both go over what you believe in and why, and just leave it there. Don't try and sway the other person, just try to figure out where they're coming from so you can have a better understanding on their situation.
Personally, I would say that I am Christian, yet that doesn't mean I can't thrive to find a scientific explanation for everything in life.
Which would be the point of my reply; Because each person is different, your comment is too vast and doesn't really hit on every target, so to speak.
#301 to #253 - vwgreen
Reply +3
(02/11/2014) [-]
we don't call what we don't know God. We believe there is a God and a sub-section of us believe he came down and chilled with us for a bit saying "it's ok. you do you." This sucks that this debate even happened, cause now all the religion bashers feel high and mighty, when the truth is they don't even understand science. I am a man of science too, but I don't just say "it's God's purpose" because the same type people who don't understand science also exist on the religious side. There exist many people who blindly follow religion. IT'S BAD. But there are many people who blindly follow science too. I'm not saying they're wrong, but science DOES change it's theories. We didn't always understands magnets and gravity and even today we're finding new information about quantum mechanics.

The only REAL difference between science and religion is science is wonderful and lets itself grow into a better being. If you try to do that with religion you become "evil."

Just sharing my thoughts and 2-cents. Not trying to cause a *********. Trying to bring understanding.
#259 to #253 - bladebites
Reply +1
(02/11/2014) [-]
Thank you. Just... yes. Well said.
#247 - massengit
Reply +5
(02/11/2014) [-]
The anti-religion attitude of the internet is depressing :/
#277 to #247 - kiratheunholy
Reply +1
(02/11/2014) [-]
You should realize that this comment is not at all anti-religion. While yes FJ has posted some 'edgy' comments about religion in surveys done by users the majority of users were christian. (So in reality most of these 'anti-religion' jokes stem from people who know how to laugh at themselves and have a good sense of humor)

Moving on to why this comment isn't anti-religion. Go watch the debate between Bill Nye and Ken Ham. This content is simply making fun of how bad an argument that man had. You should really watch the debate, he didn't make any good points at all, and simply dodged all the questions when they were too hard.
#293 to #277 - massengit
Reply 0
(02/11/2014) [-]
I did watch, and my opinion is still such
#258 to #247 - bladebites
Reply 0
(02/11/2014) [-]
How so?
Religious people aren't the same thing as religion itself. Religion is an idea, and like other ideas, it can be mocked.
Besides, it's not like you can even hurt an idea's feelings or something.
It could be because I'm anti-theist, but I find it refreshing.
#239 - paulthehero
Reply +8
(02/11/2014) [-]
#236 - szymonf
Reply -1
(02/11/2014) [-]
I like how the artists got the stickers on the mac right.

But seriously, this is an argument that will never be won until the teaching of creationism is classified as "child abuse". This Christian minority has been told their entire lives that they were created by God just as the bible said. The stories give them meaning, a reason to live. Probably why most of their arguments are so pseudo-philosophical (if there is no god then why should I treat others with respect etc.).
The way they see people like Bill Nye is not as a teacher but as a man trying to convince them that their parents are liars or stupid.
#263 to #236 - sgtxrootbeer
Reply 0
(02/11/2014) [-]
well although it is far from "child abuse" as you say, whats wrong with giving children meaning? And maybe they see " people like Bill Nye is not as a teacher but as a man trying to convince them that their parents are liars or stupid" because you are actively trying to convince them that everything they have ever known is false. you are convincing them that the meaning to life is a lie, while your own theory has holes in it big enough to drive a semi-truck through.

this is not child abuse, because it is like you say, people making everything they have ever known (true or false) meaningless.
#232 - kanedam
Reply +3
(02/11/2014) [-]
i havent even seen that discussion and it already annoys me to see these posts...
#231 - elcreepo
Reply -1
(02/11/2014) [-]
Yes, but the scientific community and metaphysical community are two entirely different things that should not attempt to cross each other at any one time.

Metaphysics can't explain some sciences, science can't explain some aspects of metaphysics, so let's make peace and not war over it.
#233 to #231 - noblexfenrir
Reply +1
(02/11/2014) [-]
What lol?

Please give an example of metaphysics that isn't able to be explained and covered by science.
#252 to #233 - agreatusername
Reply +2
(02/11/2014) [-]
Visions/ hallucinations during near death or complete death experiences. I had a friend that just about died, he was legally dead for a few minutes, when he came to he told everyone that he was completely conscious during that period. Said that during that time he was in the entrance a large open mouthed cave, and it was very grey and raining outside with perpetual fog. In his mind he said he knew he should go out and explore to see if he could find a better place to stay but didn't have the energy. He said to him he was in that cave for 3-4 days. He's convinced he was in purgatory. Im not defending metaphysics or science. You asked what has science been unable to explain and here it is. This was all second hand information, I didn't experience it, and im going of my friends conclusion. I agree with the original comment that there's no real reason to fight about it either way.
#300 to #252 - noblexfenrir
Reply 0
(02/11/2014) [-]
Also, out of general curiosity, what was the condition that led your friend to being declared legally dead? I think you may be thinking of clinically dead, because they generally don't declare legally (brain) dead unless it's at an irreversible state. ( Which I don't believe there has been one case of a recovery from such in medical history.)
#274 to #252 - noblexfenrir
Reply +2
(02/11/2014) [-]
"Visions/ hallucinations during near death or complete death experiences."
Shown to be reactions in the brain due to many factors, many also pertaining to the cause of the near death experience. NDE can and have been recreated under conditions that are non-lethal.

Noone is fighting between the two, I'm simply saying that metaphysics is more of the questioning aspects (The "why") and science is the process and knowledge (The "How"), using the former in place of the latter to determine reality ends up just producing wrong results.

#262 to #252 - bladebites
Reply +2
(02/11/2014) [-]
A lot of that has been explained. I took a course on psychology that covered a lot of it. I'm no expert, but there is a lot of logical psychological reasons for why certain people "see" certain things (for example, the light at the end of a tunnel).
I'd really recommend looking into it, because it's really interesting (whether you're religious or not).
#271 to #262 - agreatusername
Reply 0
(02/11/2014) [-]
I've heard it and I think it has some basis, however on sciences most base principals on life, once the brain stops working and you are "legally dead" as I said there is little to no brain activity. I agree that with slight brain activity it could be explained. With no brain activity I don't think it can yet. Just my opinion.
#273 to #271 - bladebites
Reply +1
(02/11/2014) [-]
That's an interesting take on it. I'd never heard it before.
#257 to #252 - elcreepo
Reply 0
(02/11/2014) [-]
Yep.
#238 to #233 - elcreepo
Reply -1
(02/11/2014) [-]
Now what you're doing is attacking because you don't understand quite what I'm saying.

Let people believe what they want whether there's scientific proof or theoretical stuff.
#246 to #238 - noblexfenrir
Reply +1
(02/11/2014) [-]
"Now what you're doing is attacking because you don't understand quite what I'm saying. "

I understand exactly what you're saying, I just think it's really stupid.


"Let people believe what they want whether there's scientific proof or theoretical stuff."
They certainly have every ability and right to do so. but I sure as hell will tell them that they're wrong when they can't support their reasoning.
#272 to #246 - elcreepo
Reply 0
(02/11/2014) [-]
-sigh- This is why I hate the internet sometimes.

I mean really, are you so butthurt about religion that you have to make comments about how stupid they are every second? It's getting annoying as ****, since it just makes all of us look stupid. Haven't you noticed that there's nothing wrong with being an atheist, aslong as you're not a "militant" atheist. And there's nothing wrong with being religious, either, as long as you're not militant.
#287 to #272 - noblexfenrir
Reply +1
(02/11/2014) [-]
I don't tell them they are stupid, I said your comment was stupid. I generally find most religious people to be intelligent, sometimes very intelligent. I however also do see the religious process of determining reality to be idiotic. Notice how I'm not talking about the person, but the process.

Call me militant or whatever you want, but I find people like you more annoying, the entire concept of "Why can't we just all get along, everyone's right, everyone has the right to have their belief and to be respected for it blah..blah..blah.". Again, I do not respect a belief that is blatantly false when presented to reasonable skepticism.

From the "make all of us look stupid" I'm assuming you're an atheist, except the difference between you and me is we both see the flaws in the process, except I respect religious individuals as people enough to tell and explain to them that it's stupid. You instead prefer to take the "ignorance is bliss" approach, and treat them like children. Something they aren't.
#292 to #287 - elcreepo
Reply 0
(02/11/2014) [-]
>blatantly false

Can you prove the existence or nonexistence of a soul? Can you prove what happens after we die, consciously? There is no such thing as being wrong in matters of the heart and emotion. How a society functions is often based off of religion.

I'm not taking the ignorance is bliss approach. I'm taking the approach along the lines of "neither science nor religion can tell the other how to be." One deals with the afterlife and the moral function surrounding a human being, another deals with answering the questions on the unknown.
#297 to #292 - noblexfenrir
Reply +1
(02/11/2014) [-]
"Can you prove the existence or nonexistence of a soul?"
The person making the claim of a souls existence has to prove it, otherwise there is no good reason to believe in one outside of simply "wanting" it to exist. Which I'm sure we can both agree, doesn't mean anything when determining the existence of something.

"Can you prove what happens after we die, consciously?"
Well considering consciousness is derived from the brain, and when the brain dies all of it's functions die, it follows to show that it "ends". Along with every other mental process.

"There is no such thing as being wrong in matters of the heart and emotion."
Cool, we agree. However, reality isn't a result of emotion.

"How a society functions is often based off of religion. "
Eh not really, more often than naught in history you usually see religious influenced by the culture of the society that adapts it, not the other way around. Generally why we see so many pagan gods that represent desires that can be appeased to gain something in return.

"neither science nor religion can tell the other how to be."
Except science can tell religion to provide evidence for it's claims on reality.





#237 to #233 - elcreepo
Reply 0
(02/11/2014) [-]
Anything that happened before man, and also, the origin of the big bang, ect.

Science backs it up, but has no concrete seen-it proof. Also, try explaining germs to an african tribe. It just doesn't work, for a multitude of reasons. Sure there's proof, but people will believe what they want and that's okay. Science needs to understand that that's okay, just as meta physicists need to understand that science is okay too.

And, as a warning, I'M NOT SAYING SCIENCE IS WRONG AND METAPHYSICS IS RIGHT. I'M SAYING THEY'RE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS AND TWO DIFFERENT BELIEFS, AND TO FIGHT IS POINTLESS.
#245 to #237 - noblexfenrir
Reply 0
(02/11/2014) [-]
"Science backs it up, but has no concrete seen-it proof."
Please don't start with this whole "observational science" thing like Ken did during the debate, we can use current findings to discover what happened during the past. This also isn't metaphysics so I don't really see how this has anything to do with your point.

" Also, try explaining germs to an african tribe. It just doesn't work, for a multitude of reasons. Sure there's proof, but people will believe what they want and that's okay. "

What?...the **** are you smoking? They can believe that germs aren't real but the fact is they are and their belief is false on every front. You can explain germs to them, would it be hard for them to grasp? Yes, impossible? No.

" Science needs to understand that that's okay, just as meta physicists need to understand that science is okay too. "
The entire point of science is to discover reality, to say that we need to be fair and let everyone believe what they want and they are all justified is just absolutely ridiculous. I will tell someone they are wrong if they have no evidence to back up a claim they make. Again by the way, you haven't given an example of metaphysics that science can't explain. (Not having a current answer I.E. before the big bang, is not an example of something they CAN'T explain, it's something they don't have the evidence currently for. Different scenarios.)

", I'M NOT SAYING SCIENCE IS WRONG AND METAPHYSICS IS RIGHT. I'M SAYING THEY'RE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS AND TWO DIFFERENT BELIEFS, AND TO FIGHT IS POINTLESS."
I really don't think it's pointless to call something wrong, well...wrong. Otherwise people who are ignorant to the subject may give it undeserved merit and think it's an actual solution to the problem when in reality it's just what that person "feels" is right.
#248 to #245 - elcreepo
Reply 0
(02/11/2014) [-]
Big bang origin is.

It's impossible. They've tried, and failed multiple times to get a culture not rooted in science to believe in the unseen.

Problem is that when you do that, you hurt people. There is no concrete evidence of anything science has found before planet earth. There is no explanation for what kicked off the big bang, For all science knows, it could be god.

This is basic anthropology 101. Neither field is related to one another. One is personal (religion ect) and can't possibly be wrong or right as it's only just a theory, an unseen one, like everything else. Science too, can and has been wrong. And science is not personal, and its whole point is getting evidence behind belief- but you still can't make a person believe what they don't want to.

And religion is a vital part of society. It's just plain wrong to go around screaming that everyone else is wrong. It makes you as bad as the Christians who attack science when you attack Christians.

People use religion as a coping mechanism, If you're too fedora to respect that, well then, i have nothing else to say.
#267 to #248 - noblexfenrir
Reply +1
(02/11/2014) [-]
"Big bang origin is. "
Except it isn't, there may be unanswered questions related to metaphysics revolving big bang origin, but the actual origin itself is a concern for science, not metaphysics.

"It's impossible. They've tried, and failed multiple times to get a culture not rooted in science to believe in the unseen"

Source please.

" Neither field is related to one another."
Only slightly correct, they are not connected to each other but they are interchangeable as methods for determining reality.

"can't possibly be wrong or right as it's only just a theory, an unseen one, like everything else"
What? Theories can be wrong, they generally are understood as not true until evidence is gathered for the affirmative.

" Science too, can and has been wrong."
Science is never actually "wrong" as a process, what was once an answer to a question becomes outdated as new information and evidence arises, this is a fine-tuning process.

"And science is not personal, "
Who gives a **** if something is personal or not, that has absolutely nothing to do with determining reality with a degree of precision.

"but you still can't make a person believe what they don't want to. "
My entire point is it doesn't matter if someone believes in something or not, their beliefs can easily be wrong and shown to be such if they do not provide evidence for it.
#270 to #267 - noblexfenrir
Reply +1
(02/11/2014) [-]
"And religion is a vital part of society."
Subjective, aspects of religion are beneficial (Community, charity, etc.) but all of these can be reproduced in other conditions. If you are talking about religion as the very specific belief and faith, then I would argue no, it isn't vital and is actually harmful.

" It's just plain wrong to go around screaming that everyone else is wrong."
I'm not screaming nor seeking them out. I tell people they are wrong when they bring their beliefs out into the open in which one would expect criticism.

"People use religion as a coping mechanism, If you're too fedora to respect that, well then, i have nothing else to say."

Doesn't make it right or any more based in reality. and seriously? "too fedora"? I'm simply saying that people's beliefs can and commonly when based on purely faith, are wrong.
#284 to #270 - elcreepo
Reply -1
(02/11/2014) [-]
"wrong" there's no such thing as being wrong in faith. Because unless you see it with your eyes, you don't know.

This conversation is now over, as your intent is to attack like hundreds of others who are not mature enough to see that the only thing wrong with this whole debate, is when you attack someone's personal belief and strength because you believe you have all the facts.

Science cannot prove nor disprove that there is a god, therefore, science has no business in metaphysics.

My intent is to create peace among adults, one which is steadily growing. What you call stupid is a widely accepted understanding between the two groups in the fields of both anthropology and sociology.

NEITHER has any business telling the other what is wrong or right. If a person wishes to share their religion, is it really that important for you to crush them? Are you really that cynical?

Unless they shove it down your throat, you have no business telling them what is and is not wrong. They believe. It's okay for them to believe. It's okay for you to NOT believe. It's not okay, for either person to go up to the other and say "you're wrong."

Theories can be wrong, science is based on theories, therefore parts of science are wrong. See how that logic goes? You act as if religious people are in another reality. Religion itself, in a perfect world, is also a process.

People are becoming more into accepting both science and religion.

Congratulations, you've shown the biggest reason why science has no reason to be telling religion it's business or vice versa: because BOTH of you can be right or wrong, and ultimately, religion has more to do with the afterlife, something without a doubt science CANNOT prove, than anything else. Religion puts an explanation in place that others show solace in.

There's your reason why religion and science shouldn't mix. One of the biggest, anyway.

You destroy culture when you remove religion, also.
#311 to #284 - lolbears
Reply 0
(02/11/2014) [-]
May I point out that, not once, did he call you "stupid" or otherwise made a personal attack against you.

You on the other hand, kept saying things like "too Fedora' (may I add, incredibly edgy), "not mature enough" etc.

I mean come on, using Ad Hominem attacks just because he doesn't agree with you is rather bad for the conversation. Although I guess it wasn't much of a conversation. You started to dislike the way he was replying and you just stopped.

I also don't agree with "You destroy culture when you remove religion, also." but I'm not sure you even want to argue, so I'll leave it at that.
#408 to #311 - elcreepo
Reply 0
(02/11/2014) [-]
May I point out that- no, no you may not.

>your argument is stupid
>I find people like you more annoying

Read the damn thing. And, this is a well accepted idea in two sciences, and was supported by several scientists through time when going to make their claims within those fields.

It does destroy culture, if you look at many roots in many different cultures and many behaviors, religion stems a lot of it. By trying to remove someone's religion you strip a vital part of their identity.

The whole point of being in culture anthropology is to not let YOUR culture affect theirs, and by telling them they can't throw a handful of grain on the ground and dance around it to please their gods because their gods aren't real, you take away a real part of their culture.

All you people are reading is that I'm defending religion, something you think is "silly."

I honestly think I'm too old for this site now.
#414 to #408 - lolbears
Reply 0
(02/12/2014) [-]
Why do you assume I'm against religion? You will be surprised.

I never said you are defending religion. I'm replying to you just because I want to point out some things.
#295 to #284 - noblexfenrir
Reply 0
(02/11/2014) [-]
The amazing thing is, with science and the scientific method, I can easily show you evidence that would prove my point. Sitting there saying "You can't know unless you experience it" is all well and good, unless the thing you're saying is to believe in something with no evidence as all. It defeats the purpose of experiencing it to believe it.

Strange, the comment goes on for a bit longer. I have no intent to attack anyone, and I certainly don't believe I have all the facts. I simply explain why a belief based on no facts, is generally a bad process.

I'm all for peace, hell yes why not world peace? God speed on that brother, but that doesn't explain why telling someone that something wrong, is wrong, is...wrong? Weird sentence structure I know.

When they make determinations of reality, outside of their spiritual beliefs, then yes I have the ability to tell them what is right and wrong in that regard. If a person shares their religion, I share why I think it's wrong. I don't adamantly go out and point at religious people to say "YOU'RE WRONG!", now stop with the insulting words like "too fedora" "cynical" etc. when I have explained my reasoning that is far past simply hurting emotions for hurting's sake.

I'm perfectly allowed to tell them they are wrong when they are using a process to determine reality outside of their spiritual plane.

The aspects of the parts do not always transpose to the whole. The fact that theories can be proven false and replaced is part of why science cannot be "wrong", only improved based on available evidence.

Good for them.

Religion doesn't give an explanation, it simply says that since you don't know, here is something that makes you feel good as an answer. It's a placebo in that regard.

Good, so we agree religion should stay out of trying to determine reality and stick to maybe moral guidelines correct?

Eh again, subjective.
#409 to #295 - elcreepo
Reply 0
(02/11/2014) [-]
So you're saying you would tell a group of people who are celebrating their gods of harvest to stop celebrating, stop throwing their parties and perpetuating their culture, because you believe they are just "wrong."

Christmas and other major holidays have become a commercial puddle of **** because without religion, there's no meaning to it, when once there was a great understanding of family and togetherness through god that just is not there for many people anymore.

Look up Dr. Brian Donohue Lynch. My anthropology professor who taught me all this, because at one point, I was like you and thought that all religion was, was a puddle of lies that people self-endulge in.

But it's not. It's so much more, enough that science really should not say to religion that it is completely wrong.
#225 - Awesomecarrot
Reply -2
(02/11/2014) [-]
I personally think that Ken Ham held his own quite well. And the fact that the Bible
was his ownly source of evidence was the whole point, so there's not point in
ridiculing that. I agree with Nye but Ham put forward some valid points if you're
willing to approach them open-mindedly.
#230 to #225 - Blasphemer
Reply +1
(02/11/2014) [-]
I watched both of them with full attention. That is not what I saw from Ham...
#218 - DevilsCalling
Reply +1
(02/10/2014) [-]
i just watched this debate...yeah pretty much...science has proven
"yeah but....jesus.." mic drop
#214 - umaya
Reply 0
(02/10/2014) [-]
The guy on the right will shout his argument and it will look like he won. Not the religion argument, just arguments in general where 1 person uses facts and talks calmly and the other person shouts and adds a funny joke in there and wins.
#191 - bannedtoomanytimes
Reply 0
(02/10/2014) [-]
why the **** is bill gates using an apple?
#196 to #191 - anon
Reply 0
(02/10/2014) [-]
dont you mean bill nye?
#198 to #196 - bannedtoomanytimes
Reply 0
(02/10/2014) [-]
whatever you choose to call him.   
   
now tell me why does steve jobs have a bible? i doubt he was even religious
whatever you choose to call him.

now tell me why does steve jobs have a bible? i doubt he was even religious
#235 to #198 - baniggernom
Reply 0
(02/11/2014) [-]
Because it's not Steve Jobs, it's Ken Ham. It's the Nye vs. Ham debate.
#203 to #198 - majormayor
Reply 0
(02/10/2014) [-]
I think he was Buddhist.
#200 to #198 - bible
Reply +3
(02/10/2014) [-]
We was homies
#186 - majormayor
Reply 0
(02/10/2014) [-]
I like how this was posted in the comments sections of recent Bill Nye posts many times before somebody got smart enough to post it as actual content.
#182 - wthree
Reply +6
(02/10/2014) [-]
Okay, explain this ATHEISTS: If god doesn't exist, then how come the whole universe revolves around the earth?
#202 to #182 - WillWalrus
Reply 0
(02/10/2014) [-]
Comment Picture
#188 to #182 - tossed
Reply +2
(02/10/2014) [-]
#184 to #182 - ragingbrony
Reply +61
(02/10/2014) [-]
Because your mom creates that much gravitational force.
Because your mom creates that much gravitational force.
#331 to #184 - lolibear
Reply 0
(02/11/2014) [-]
That just made my day.
That just made my day.
#228 to #184 - Taiga
Reply +3
(02/11/2014) [-]
#177 - zeroxnight
Reply +3
(02/10/2014) [-]
The first civilization created us. everyone knows that
#175 - anon
Reply 0
(02/10/2014) [-]
Ill get down thumbed for this so i'm not going to log in, science has numerous laws, biology only has 1 life comes from life, so that being said evolution breaks the 1 lay of biology the only one.
#227 to #175 - fgtometer
Reply +1
(02/11/2014) [-]
Evolution and abiogenesis are not the same thing
#185 to #175 - Spavaloo
Reply +2
(02/10/2014) [-]
That's not true in the slightest.

Did you ever take biology in high school?

#183 to #175 - wthree
Reply +1
(02/10/2014) [-]
wut?
#162 - revengeforfreeze
Reply 0
(02/10/2014) [-]
fixed