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

hide menu
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#185 - whofortytwo (04/22/2012) [-]
Once you can explain logically how there was absolutely nothing and then there was the Big Bang, I'll start to have a different outlook on Naturalism.
#203 to #185 - xxxsonic fanxxx (04/22/2012) [-]
Once you can explain logically how there is a big floaty magical man in the sky that knows everything, sees everything and controls everything, I'll start not considering you stupid.
#206 to #203 - whofortytwo (04/22/2012) [-]
Excuse me? Why is it so hard to believe that the universe was created and had a cause?
You have no reason to doubt such a possibility.
User avatar #306 to #206 - fatalfuuu (04/24/2012) [-]
If there was something that created everything using the big bang, this would mean all the **** in the bible is ******** , and there is no god (in the christian sense) and all other Earth bound religions are ******** etc.




#310 to #306 - whofortytwo (04/24/2012) [-]
The Big Bang is the effect, not the cause. It's simple logic.
User avatar #242 to #206 - bgbba (04/22/2012) [-]
We have no reason to believe it wholeheartedly either. Perhaps the universe was created by someone, perhaps not. But I can tell you that the chances of there being a Christian god are near nil. And no, there wasn't nothing, there was some kind of explosion from a point where all matter was condensed into an infinitisimally small dot. Not to mention that the Big Bang isn't even a theory, a theory is supported by evidence. The Big Bang is but a hypothesis that many scientists accept as true. In the end, it doesn't matter, since that was all in the past. What matters now is religion's impact on daily public life of the citizens of Earth, and I see a whole lot of damage being done because the Bible didn't like so-and-so.
#296 to #242 - whofortytwo (04/23/2012) [-]
The explosion is the effect, not the cause.
#214 to #206 - Drageads (04/22/2012) [-]
Why is it so hard to believe that cause was the rapid expansion of a singularity?
#213 to #206 - xxxsonic fanxxx (04/22/2012) [-]
So big floaty magical guy is a go, but a singularity expanding (not an explosion btw, expansion) is waaaaay too crazy for you to comprehend?
#215 to #213 - xxxsonic fanxxx (04/22/2012) [-]
where is this big floaty man ******** coming from?
#216 to #215 - xxxsonic fanxxx (04/22/2012) [-]
you know, god? big floaty guy, right? He's supposed to look like this.
#220 to #216 - xxxsonic fanxxx (04/22/2012) [-]
if you take the bible literally then yes it sounds stupid, however if you look at logical and not like a single minded atheist twat it makes sense
#239 to #220 - bgbba (04/22/2012) [-]
Um, not really. First off, I don't call all Christians single-minded twats, so don't flame on my own kind. Second, not really, it's only logical if you ignore most scientific progress since Jesus. It doesn't make sense. Perhaps if you take some of genesis in a figurative, not literal sense, then that might help, but the Bible is too rigid, and science's flexibility is better and more logical. And it makes more sense, regardless of what holy book I read, that's why I'm an Atheist.
#297 to #239 - whofortytwo (04/23/2012) [-]
Look dude. It's really simple logic.
Work with me here.
You have nothing. Not air, nothing. A vacuum. Now leave it for billions of years.
What will happen to your vacuum, assuming the seal on it doesn't break?
User avatar #228 to #220 - Xedan (04/22/2012) [-]
What Christians say when people criticize bible logic: "Oh come on guys don't take the bible literally"

What Christians say when they don't like something: "Derpacies 6:43! Y'ALL ****** GOIN TO HELL! SAIS IT RIGHT HUR IN DA BIBLE!"
#298 to #228 - whofortytwo (04/23/2012) [-]
That's not true. Only the stupid people act like that.
#234 to #228 - xxxsonic fanxxx (04/22/2012) [-]
never met a christian like that i think thats just thick american christians but then again all americans are thick
User avatar #237 to #234 - Xedan (04/22/2012) [-]
Only in waists, other than that you're just being ignorant about americans. Whereas, for my part of this argument, I've never met one Christian who hasn't ever used the bible to back up on opinion. Yet the second a bible verse starts making them look bad it becomes "figurative" and "not to be taken literally". Honestly, if you take anything in the bible as anything less than literal, you aren't being a christian. You're being whatever the **** you want to be, just with a book you can fallaciously cite to back yourself up.
#299 to #237 - whofortytwo (04/23/2012) [-]
If you're talking about the poetic sections, yes. It's figurative.
User avatar #305 to #299 - Xedan (04/23/2012) [-]
I'm talking about everything the bible says that people just disregard because we know it didn't happen. Like how we know the earth wasn't made 6000 years ago, and we know all animals that exist now weren't just created all at once without any predecessors.
#309 to #305 - whofortytwo (04/24/2012) [-]
Know? You can't prove any of that.
Give me definitive observable evidence.
Wait, there isn't any. Because that IS how it worked.
User avatar #311 to #309 - Xedan (04/24/2012) [-]
Fossils, evidence against both. the creatures would not have existed according to the bible, and they were from far further back than the bible said even existed.
#312 to #311 - whofortytwo (04/24/2012) [-]
Okay then, prove that the world is actually that old. The dating devices that say how old these fossils are.
How do you know they're completely accurate?
User avatar #314 to #312 - Xedan (04/25/2012) [-]
they rely on chemical properties and math. that's a lot more accurate than a bearded sky-man gifting information unto a chosen person.
#316 to #314 - whofortytwo (04/26/2012) [-]
HAH.
Using assumption-based "research" is more accurate than an omniscient and omnipotent God? You may not have thought this through.
User avatar #318 to #316 - Xedan (04/26/2012) [-]
HAH.
Something that shouldn't exist according to any rules of the universe is more accurate than data collected and proven over a matter of centuries? You may not have thought this through. So you're telling me that we have no way of knowing that water's intermolecular bonds are broken at 100 degrees Celsius thus changing it into a vapor (boiling, if it wasn't clear), and in fact there'd be a better chance that god gives water the ability to fly when it gets hot if that was what the Bible said? So basically humans know absolutely nothing and science doesn't work? Oh, okay, for a second there I thought you were spouting off nonsense, but I guess you weren't because nobody knows anything about anything (with the sole exception of knowing everything in the bible is true).
#320 to #318 - whofortytwo (04/28/2012) [-]
I'm pretty sure a creator of the universe gets to decide whether he should exist or not by said universe's rules. You're putting words in my mouth now. This isn't about religion VS science, because science fits perfectly with religion. Evolution is not science. It's all based on assumptions. Here's a question for you and your illogical worldview.
Imagine you have a jar of nothing. Like, a perfectly clean jar, with no vacuum. It never gets opened. Leave it for five billion years. The seal stays fine.

Tell me. What happens to your jar? It's very simple.
User avatar #341 to #320 - Xedan (05/09/2012) [-]
why do you feel these transitional forms would still exist in any form? Fossilization doesn't always happen. Most animal carcasses just decompose. Otherwise the earth's crust would probably be like 20% fossils. The simple fact we have proof of any of the transitional forms is nothing short of a minor miracle. But what are you getting at? Are you one of those guys who say "oh, well sure, you found the missing link, but what about the missing link between us and the missing link?". At that rate, there's no way to please you.
User avatar #339 to #320 - Xedan (05/04/2012) [-]
You do realize there's more going for the theory of Evolution than for the Big Bang theory. Seriously, pretty much the only thing we haven't done to prove evolution is wait a few million years from the founding of the theory and see if anything evolved.
#340 to #339 - whofortytwo (05/08/2012) [-]
Yet you still don't have anything to show for it.
If things really did all evolve from a single cell, where are the transitional forms? We should have billions.
User avatar #337 to #320 - Xedan (05/04/2012) [-]
I'm not even claiming personal knowledge, let alone personal omniscience. I'm stating in generalities the collective knowledge of the human race, meaning just about everything we know to be true. I'm saying that according to what we know, there is not in my opinion enough to warrant the belief in a god.
#338 to #337 - whofortytwo (05/04/2012) [-]
You are claiming that Evolution is science. It's not science. It's a religion.
User avatar #335 to #320 - Xedan (05/03/2012) [-]
Nowhere in that quote do I say god doesn't exist. I say he shouldn't, which is true according to modern science.
#336 to #335 - whofortytwo (05/04/2012) [-]
You're still claiming omniscience over all laws of the universe.
User avatar #333 to #320 - Xedan (05/03/2012) [-]
I've never claimed there's no god. I've stated my belief that there is no conventional kind of god (as in the religious kind) and my belief that there aren't scientific grounds to necessitate a god. Don't mistake the rejection of beliefs with a positive assertion of the opposite. Just because I don't think you're belief in a god is right, doesn't mean I know (or think I know) that there is no god. You'll probably never meet a truly Gnostic Atheist, that is, an atheist that "knows" they're right (the same way a religious person "knows" they're right, which would be Gnostic Theism). The whole concept of Gnostic atheism goes directly against most atheist's ideals, since there's no conceivable way one could ever prove there isn't a god. Almost all atheists are agnostic atheists, meaning they believe knowledge of whether god exists or not is unknowable, but also believe that, like I've mentioned, there isn't logical grounds for assuming there is a god. this is only different philosophically from agnostic theism and strict agnosticism.
#334 to #333 - whofortytwo (05/03/2012) [-]
Something that shouldn't exist according to any rules of the universe is more accurate than data collected and proven over a matter of centuries?

>DIRECT QUOTE

User avatar #331 to #320 - Xedan (05/03/2012) [-]
There's a big difference between saying we don't know what caused the big bang and saying an all powerful all knowing extra-universal being just wished the universe into existence, and that any other theory is inherently wrong for not coming to this same conclusion.
#332 to #331 - whofortytwo (05/03/2012) [-]
That's not what I'm saying.
Did you know that for you to claim THERE IS NO GOD that you're claiming omniscience of the entire universe?
Think about that.
User avatar #327 to #320 - Xedan (04/30/2012) [-]
No it wouldn't, that would only be in the steady state theory, and then that's also assuming stars never die, which, of course, they do. There's no scenario in which the night sky would be completely white. And besides, I was saying the universe as an entity may have always existed, but not in one continuous form. I'm still saying the big bang happened. Besides, if I recall right, I was only mentioning the big bang/crunch theory, not advocating it.
#328 to #327 - whofortytwo (05/02/2012) [-]
I'm not saying the Big Bang never happened.
I'm saying it's the effect, not the cause.
User avatar #325 to #320 - Xedan (04/30/2012) [-]
We don't know. We accept that we can make no logical predictions about the universe before the laws governing it existed. There would still be physics to the singularity, but it would be entirely different, as gravity, among other things, wouldn't have even existed, as that and other forces came about after the expansion (we believe). There's theories, like the theory that the universe does exist infinitely, in a cycle of expansions and "big crunch"s, but those theories are more like shots in the dark than legit science, so there's not a "most accepted" theory.
#326 to #325 - whofortytwo (04/30/2012) [-]
If the universe were infinitely old, the night sky would be completely white due to the amount of stars whose light would reach our planet.
User avatar #323 to #320 - Xedan (04/29/2012) [-]
"there was always a big bag" wtf? It's painfully obvious how little you know about science.
before the big bang the universe was condensed into a singularity. It was still there, just almost infinitely dense, as every bit of matter and energy in our universe existed within that speck. Don't ask me to go into further detail, because how the **** can we know what happened prior to the universe as we know it existing? Besides, it's a clearer explanation than "oh yeah the universe wasn't always there, but god sure was, and he made the universe. we aren't quite sure how he did it, except that earth came before the sun and the stars."
#324 to #323 - whofortytwo (04/29/2012) [-]
What do you mean, it was "still there"?
Are you saying the universe is infinitely old?
User avatar #321 to #320 - Xedan (04/28/2012) [-]
Well I can't really say that anything evolves from it because you said it was clean. And it's not like anyone believes glass evolves into life forms. I don't get your point. And you're using the term "assumptions" as loosely as a 2 cent hooker. For instance fossils are concrete, not assumptions. The decay rate of certain carbon isotopes is concrete, not assumed. The levels of said isotope measured from said fossil are concrete, not assumed. Therefor, the only thing we're "assuming" when it comes to carbon dating is that the universe isn't just one giant random-ass ************ where nothing makes sense. I think you'd probably come to that assumption, too, wouldn't you? Or do you have evidence to the contrary? Because if you can prove to me that the universe works like ************************** , then I won't hesitate to hop in my calendar and send you a "sorry I doubted you" potato.
#322 to #321 - whofortytwo (04/29/2012) [-]
Well, you're assuming that there was never a geological flood. That would seriously mess with your dating methods.

So now, what was the universe before the Big Bang?
Don't go saying there was always a Big Bang, because the universe isn't infinitely old.
#224 to #220 - xxxsonic fanxxx (04/22/2012) [-]
So I'm not supposed to take your single source of "evidence" literally?
#227 to #224 - xxxsonic fanxxx (04/22/2012) [-]
So I'm supposed to take all your unproven theorys as fact?
#232 to #227 - xxxsonic fanxxx (04/22/2012) [-]
Ah yes clearly, logical research done by present day scientists < dumbass ~2000 years ago trying to explain lightning and earthquakes.
#241 to #232 - iluvas (04/22/2012) [-]
Research on the atlantean conspiracy, or if you play skyrim, try to understand who the dwemer are. We are dumbasses compared to the ancient ascended masters.
#248 to #241 - xxxsonic fanxxx (04/22/2012) [-]
I find it funny how you compare Skyrim to real life, obviously in Skyrim the plot is set out so that you never really understand the Dwemer.

As for real life, it is evident that god was used for a variety of things: giving people hope for the future, allows the government to better control their citizens (possibly by tacking on "hell" for those who do wrong), and to explain what they themselves could not.

However, once we began explaining things; lightning, earthquakes, tsunami, forest fires, etc, "god(s)" began to have less influence on people. Governments would execute non believers, and try to advance their influence over people. Which is now illegal in most places. And now really all "god" represents is hope for the weak minded. Weak minded as in, those who can not give themselves hope and must believe in something greater to progress themselves.

At least, that's how I see it.
#259 to #248 - iluvas (04/22/2012) [-]
Ah you are right. But look at it this way, the "religion controlling the population" thing was because a group of people changed jesus's words into something of their favor, and hence it turns into a tool of control. That doesn't mean the original words were lies. ;)

And I used Skyrim as an example because Bethesda apparently is very occult with their game, they are actually performing something called lesser magick on us gamers. (showing truth but telling you its 'just a game' not real, same with many other movies, music , etc.), you would know if you study some occult or do some research.

I know your feel, Christianity has betrayed its purpose, but that doesn't mean God doesn't exist, religion is simply the medium for you to get to know God, and that medium has been heavily corrupted, they are still a few that aren't corrupted though...

ps. god is nothing of a man, he has no eyes like us, he has no form like us, he is a force that makes existence exist. Religion likes to use poetics and symbolic meanings too. Don't take it literally.
#265 to #259 - xxxsonic fanxxx (04/22/2012) [-]
The main reason why I dislike religion is how corrupt it is, many followers are also corrupt. I mean I don't care if people have religions, if people follow religions, it's just when people's religions affect me do I get a bit pissy. Lots of people just use religion as that go-to thing when you're feeling sad. Not a problem there, right?

And well here, the guy kind of asked for a religious debate and overall it was quite enjoyable. Thanks everyone :)
#301 to #265 - whofortytwo (04/23/2012) [-]
That's generalization. I hate it when people generalize.
#270 to #265 - iluvas (04/22/2012) [-]
Ay, some use it for comfort but its more of a guide to life, me personally i use it as motivation and inspiration to progress in life. My belief to me is like pikachu to ash.

It's been a pleasure talking to you anon. But might i ask FJ why i was given red thumbs in my above comments =(
#302 to #270 - whofortytwo (04/23/2012) [-]
Like I said somewhere else.
Because FJ is full of idiots who refute facts.
 Friends (0)