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

hide menu
Anonymous commenting is allowed
#2 - devout feminist (04/25/2012) [-]
your god doesn't exist. checkmate christians
#7 to #2 - whofortytwo (04/25/2012) [-]
Your random thought is a checkmate?
There's no evidence to disprove a God.
User avatar #8 to #7 - corkscrew (04/25/2012) [-]
If you want to play that card, there is no evidence to prove there IS a God
#9 to #8 - whofortytwo (04/25/2012) [-]
But you claim that Evolution is a fact. There's no evidence supporting it that can't be taken a different way.
User avatar #11 to #9 - corkscrew (04/25/2012) [-]
I didn't claim anything. Don't put words in my mouth. I'm just playing devil's advocate and pointing out flaws in your argument.
#12 to #11 - whofortytwo (04/25/2012) [-]
Okay then. But that's the thing. Christianity is meant to be taken on faith, but people simply don't say that Evolution is faith, they say it's fact.
That's what I hate about Evolution. Not that the idea is out there, but that the idea isn't treated as "ridiculous" like any other religion.
#15 to #12 - winternetz (04/25/2012) [-]
only stupid people call evolution a fact. it is still a theory, if we find something that is agreed upon to be more plausible then it will become obsolete.
#17 to #15 - whofortytwo (04/25/2012) [-]
Stupid people being the majority of the atheistic community?
Let's try Richard Dawkins. He's a pretty well known guy, right?
richarddawkins.net/articles/642754-attention-governor-perry-evolution-is-a-fact
#20 to #17 - winternetz (04/25/2012) [-]
well now i kind of feel stupid.

Paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould writes, "Evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered."[1]
Similarly, biologist Richard Lenski says, "Scientific understanding requires both facts and theories that can explain those facts in a coherent manner. Evolution, in this context, is both a fact and a theory. It is an incontrovertible fact that organisms have changed, or evolved, during the history of life on Earth. And biologists have identified and investigated mechanisms that can explain the major patterns of change."[35]
Biologist T. Ryan Gregory says, "biologists rarely make reference to 'the theory of evolution,' referring instead simply to 'evolution' (i.e., the fact of descent with modification) or 'evolutionary theory' (i.e., the increasingly sophisticated body of explanations for the fact of evolution). That evolution is a theory in the proper scientific sense means that there is both a fact of evolution to be explained and a well-supported mechanistic framework to account for it.

i went out looking for something to say that it was classified as a theory somehow but all i could find was this.

#34 to #20 - whofortytwo (04/26/2012) [-]
Give me proof that we evolved from apelike ancestors one way or the other indefinitely, please.
Never.
Freaking.
Happened.
#36 to #34 - winternetz (04/27/2012) [-]
and that is why it is still a theory. we can not prove it indefinitely, but if you open your eyes there is an almost overwhelming amount of evidence that we evolved, and still are evolving.
#37 to #36 - whofortytwo (04/28/2012) [-]
THEN GIVE ME THE EVIDENCE.
THERE IS NONE.
#40 to #37 - winternetz (04/29/2012) [-]
http : You need to login to view this link Evolution

start there
#77 to #40 - whofortytwo (05/19/2012) [-]
My apologies, but that is the stupidest thing you've said yet.
Fine, in your own words, what is good?
Don't you dare say not bad.
#78 to #77 - winternetz (05/19/2012) [-]
you say may post is stupid? you are the one asking the same question over and over again trying to get me to say something i don't even consider the right answer. this little discussion has circled more times than i care to count because of you.

in my own words good is something that benefits or pleases you.

bad is something that hinders you or displeases you.

since you didn't like my choice of word what would you call killing?
#79 to #78 - whofortytwo (05/19/2012) [-]
I'm not asking about my morals, I'm trying to understand what yours are.
So by that standing, what right does the government have to jail someone for rape?
#80 to #79 - winternetz (05/19/2012) [-]
you didn't ask about your morals, but i did. answer the question.
the government helps protect the people from unbalanced people by removing them from the general population. by removing one persons rights, they protect a larger number of peoples well-being.
#85 to #80 - whofortytwo (05/20/2012) [-]
But the person won't enjoy his punishment.
I don't enjoy school. Who decides what's right and wrong?
why?
#86 to #85 - winternetz (05/21/2012) [-]
that's why i said if it benefits the majority of people.
the government decides what's right and what's wrong. the government is the voice of the people, so the people decide what is right.
#87 to #86 - whofortytwo (05/22/2012) [-]
How do you decide who should be punished?
Some people enjoy things, other people don't.
Say, abortion. Who should be punished, the people offended by abortion, or the people offended by the people offended by abortion?
#88 to #87 - winternetz (05/22/2012) [-]
its not a crime to be offended by something. people are allowed their own beliefs and opinions, in fact it is supported. we decide who gets punished by making laws as i explained in #86. everyone, religious and non religious, agree on the laws by voting.
#81 to #80 - whofortytwo (05/19/2012) [-]
And who are they to decide who's unbalanced and who isn't?

From my worldview, murder is bad because it ends an innocent life, and life is sacred.
There is no sanctity of life if there is no supernatural. It doesn't work.
#82 to #81 - winternetz (05/19/2012) [-]
they decide through a little thing called the justice system. either an unbiased third person reviews all the evidence and makes a decision or a jury of people come to a decision.

i'm assuming you believe in some sort of after life and that death is just another step in your journey, so why does it matter when you arrive at that step?
#83 to #82 - whofortytwo (05/19/2012) [-]
But why should they be punished?
All they've done is something they enjoy.
#84 to #83 - winternetz (05/20/2012) [-]
but other people dont enjoy it. if someone endangers other peoples lives it benefits more people to punish the wrong doer.
#41 to #40 - whofortytwo (04/29/2012) [-]
No. That evidence can also point to Creation.
Give. Me. Solid. Evidence. For. Evolution.
#42 to #41 - winternetz (04/30/2012) [-]
everything science can prove could be labelled as gods work. it depends on what you want to believe.
#43 to #42 - whofortytwo (04/30/2012) [-]
Exactly.
So don't go around saying that Evolution is a better possibility than God.
#44 to #43 - winternetz (04/30/2012) [-]
science uses logic and common factors, believing in god involves blind faith. i think i will stick with logic.
#67 to #44 - whofortytwo (05/16/2012) [-]
You haven't explained properly.
Explain exactly why we should not do things we like.
#68 to #67 - winternetz (05/17/2012) [-]
killing is not something balanced humans enjoy. there are insane people who believe that killing is okay, but that doesn't make them atheists. Many crazy people kill believing god guided them.

to help clear things up;

most people don't enjoy killing
being a murderer doesn't make you an atheist

what stops religious people from killing? because you read it in a book that threatened you with heaven and hell? that makes your god a terrorist.

from what you have said i have learned that;

religious people only think killing is bad because of a book
you (not everyone, just you) would have no morals without god, and would be a rapist and murderer

#75 to #68 - whofortytwo (05/19/2012) [-]
In your own words.
#76 to #75 - winternetz (05/19/2012) [-]
bad = not good
#73 to #68 - whofortytwo (05/19/2012) [-]
Bad. What is bad? Explain to me exactly what "bad" is and why it is "bad".
#74 to #73 - winternetz (05/19/2012) [-]
Definition of BAD

1
a : failing to reach an acceptable standard : poor <a bad repair job>
b : unfavorable <make a bad impression>
c : not fresh : spoiled <bad fish>
d : not sound : dilapidated <the house was in bad condition>
2
a : morally objectionable : evil <bad men>
b : mischievous, disobedient <a bad dog>

2. a) is the most relevant one.
#71 to #68 - whofortytwo (05/19/2012) [-]
But why should they be punished for it?
#72 to #71 - winternetz (05/19/2012) [-]
they did something bad and need to learn the error of their ways, or else be taken out of the general population.
#69 to #68 - whofortytwo (05/17/2012) [-]
If you enjoy killing and raping, why not do it?
#70 to #69 - winternetz (05/18/2012) [-]
well, they do and they get punished. that question had nothing to do with anything.
#46 to #44 - whofortytwo (05/02/2012) [-]
Here's logic for you.
The Big Bang created everything, right?
So before the Big Bang, there was nothing. Right?
Then there could never have been a Big Bang, because there was nothing to cause it.
Also, you can't say anything about logic anyway, unless you want to admit that there are universal laws, which could never have evolved.
#47 to #46 - winternetz (05/03/2012) [-]
we dont know what was before the big bang, we cant say there was something, just like we cant say there wasn't something.

and here's logic for you
god created everything right?
so before he created it all, there was nothing, right?
how could he create it all if there was nothing to create it with?
and how did that god come to exist? did that gods god create him out of nothing too?

or how about this. the bible, god and all the other religions were just meant to be stories with strong moral themes that people were supposed to learn from and grow from, and not take literally?

#65 to #47 - whofortytwo (05/15/2012) [-]
Well, why not?
#66 to #65 - winternetz (05/16/2012) [-]
for the reasons we have been talking about for basically two weeks. this is why i believe that most religious people would not make it in to their heaven. if you didn't have god you would think it fine to kill and rape.

too bad self awareness is all in your brain and when you die it is gone.
#63 to #47 - whofortytwo (05/14/2012) [-]
Why do we need morals? As far as Evolution goes, we're just here by accident. We should all just kill each other as much as we need to survive.
#64 to #63 - winternetz (05/15/2012) [-]
we don't need them to survive but we have them and they make us a better species.

why do you keep asking me these sorts of questions? do religious people think it would be okay to kill without a god?
#61 to #47 - whofortytwo (05/13/2012) [-]
Compassion.
Animals don't have it, why should we?
Morals. Anything that keeps you from surviving.
#62 to #61 - winternetz (05/14/2012) [-]
i wouldn't consider compassion an instinct, but a moral.
morals are what make us humans. we don't need survival of the fittest as a species to survive anymore with modern medicine so we help all the people we can, even if they are a burden to society. animals don't have medicine so they still need the fit to keep the species alive.
#59 to #47 - whofortytwo (05/11/2012) [-]
I'm not talking about me. If we just evolved, then WHY do we have instincts that animals don't? Instincts that, in the long run, are only hindering our "evolution"?
#60 to #59 - winternetz (05/12/2012) [-]
what instincts do you mean, and how do they hinder our evolution?
#57 to #47 - whofortytwo (05/09/2012) [-]
What do you mean it's against our nature? It's not against any other creature's nature.
Why do we have rules against it? Why are we taught that it's bad?
#58 to #57 - winternetz (05/10/2012) [-]
it is against our nature to kill unless we are in danger. i meant in the context that we are not all murderers.

did you feel like killing acquaintances before you knew or understood your religion? probably not. do any kids (before they can retain memories) try to kill others? it is not in a humans instincts to kill unprovoked.

we have rules against it because no one wants to die, so we make a deterrent for those who are mentally unstable.

let me ask you this, if it is in human nature to kill like you say, then why did god create us that way, and then command us not to?
#55 to #47 - whofortytwo (05/09/2012) [-]
Would you please explain why raping and murdering are bad?
#56 to #55 - winternetz (05/09/2012) [-]
we know in our hearts and minds it is wrong (aka morals)
it is against our nature (most peoples anyways)
we have rules against it and stiff penalties
it is what we are taught our whole lives
#53 to #47 - whofortytwo (05/09/2012) [-]
So, are there morals? Should everyone not kill each other? Why?
#54 to #53 - winternetz (05/09/2012) [-]
you don't need to have god in your life to have morals. if you you need god in your life to keep you from raping and murdering, you aren't a good person and you aren't worthy of heaven.
#50 to #47 - whofortytwo (05/08/2012) [-]
www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v4/n3/evil

So you're saying that morals exist? If there are morals, there is supernatural. Morals don't just evolve.
#52 to #50 - winternetz (05/08/2012) [-]
also, please rephrase what you said, i don't understand what you're getting at. morals are a mindset, and i don't understand how that connects to the supernatural.
#51 to #50 - winternetz (05/08/2012) [-]
either that is taken out of context and i don't have the full picture, or that person actually believes god created suffering to make people think he [god] loves them. that makes god sound completely sick and twisted to me, not something to worship.
#48 to #47 - whofortytwo (05/03/2012) [-]
First paragraph:
You're limiting God. Look of the definition of Omnipotence, please.
God is eternal, the universe isn't. So I think that question's answered.
Second paragraph:
Can you rephrase with proper English? I have no idea what you're saying or asking.
#49 to #48 - winternetz (05/04/2012) [-]
i know what omnipotence is and i don't believe that this god is that. (picture related)

i will dumb that one down for you.
"religious texts" = story books created to teach morals.

User avatar #13 to #12 - corkscrew (04/25/2012) [-]
.... It's not treated as ridiculous since there is scientific evidence to back up evolution. But there is still some "faith" needed. It's more along the lines of putting the pieces together, but that could be called "faith".
But I know what you mean by "is meant to be taken on faith" and I don't understand why people don't can't see it. Along with people complaining about "why would an omnipotent being allow bad things to happen". It's like a test. He would need to know that the people really believed in him. And, if you think about it, when is it when people pray the most? When they are in need or when everything is going good for them? When everything is going swell, most people normally put a God on the back burner and sort of forget about it. But when things are going bad you pray that he will help you and make everything better.
#14 to #13 - whofortytwo (04/25/2012) [-]
The scientific evidence can quite easily be interpreted as evidence for creation.
This anon about summed it up.
funnyjunk.com/youtube/3626352/Religion+Wars/2
#16 to #14 - corkscrew (04/25/2012) [-]
that is long as shit and I'm getting tired. I'll favorite and get back to you tomorrow about what it says. Ok?
that is long as shit and I'm getting tired. I'll favorite and get back to you tomorrow about what it says. Ok?
#18 to #16 - whofortytwo (04/25/2012) [-]
Okay then. Goodnight.
#26 to #18 - corkscrew (04/25/2012) [-]
I don't think the anon is right...   
1. Why would scientists be able to create in 40 years what nature did in millions of years?   
2. His next point was that only the finches' beaks changed so therefore they aren't a different life form. But they are different. They could still probably breed together, but so can horses and donkeys. Or a horse and a zebra. And various other animals like tigers and lions.   
3. The next thing is complex systems not being able to work. What I think he is getting at is the differences in sizes of organs between child and adult. But I don't think he realizes that a child's organs are proportional to the rest of the organs like adults are.   
4. I'm not sure about what to say to this other than why wouldn't a food chain exist? This is a serious question since I don't know why it wouldn't be able to.   
5. Why wouldn't it be able to survive? It's not like it happened over a week or something like that, Having both scales and feathers must have been what was needed to survive at the time otherwise it wouldn't have happened that way. Also to prove the last part is wrong, this bitch over there has feathers and scales
I don't think the anon is right...
1. Why would scientists be able to create in 40 years what nature did in millions of years?
2. His next point was that only the finches' beaks changed so therefore they aren't a different life form. But they are different. They could still probably breed together, but so can horses and donkeys. Or a horse and a zebra. And various other animals like tigers and lions.
3. The next thing is complex systems not being able to work. What I think he is getting at is the differences in sizes of organs between child and adult. But I don't think he realizes that a child's organs are proportional to the rest of the organs like adults are.
4. I'm not sure about what to say to this other than why wouldn't a food chain exist? This is a serious question since I don't know why it wouldn't be able to.
5. Why wouldn't it be able to survive? It's not like it happened over a week or something like that, Having both scales and feathers must have been what was needed to survive at the time otherwise it wouldn't have happened that way. Also to prove the last part is wrong, this bitch over there has feathers and scales
#33 to #26 - whofortytwo (04/26/2012) [-]
Is there any evidence that that thing actually did have feathers, or is it a scientist's interpretation? That's something you should ask about most pictures like that.
#38 to #35 - whofortytwo (04/28/2012) [-]
Neat. Just curious, what is your religion?
User avatar #39 to #38 - corkscrew (04/28/2012) [-]
I grew up as a Catholic but at this point I don't know
Neither here nor there, though I am not agnostic. They just like having fence posts up their assholes
User avatar #19 to #18 - corkscrew (04/25/2012) [-]
night
 Friends (0)