Big Bang. . VIII TIMI KIWI THE HI IIH THE "' HI] WET IS HE Milli! WITH : s' THIS IS , HE HHS L,] HEW HI FINEST. HE HHS THE FIT SCIENTIST mm (“HE III’ WITH THE H
x

Big Bang

VIII TIMI KIWI THE HI IIH THE "'
HI] WET IS HE Milli! WITH : s'
THIS IS , HE HHS L,] HEW HI FINEST.
HE HHS THE FIT SCIENTIST mm (“HE III’ WITH THE
HIE EHW
TEE! PRIEST IS Elm HIE HIE
THEIVIN" |"
...
  • Recommend tagsx
+1439
Views: 38381
Favorited: 143
Submitted: 09/09/2012
Share On Facebook
Add to favorites Subscribe to smilleykillz submit to reddit

Comments(378):

[ 378 comments ]
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#35 - italianchef (09/10/2012) [-]
why do people always seem so surprised (or at least to me) when there is a religious scientist or even a religious person who believes in science likes this?
#56 to #35 - whatamidoingwithme (09/10/2012) [-]
What is interesting to me is it contradicts with their beliefs.
User avatar #59 to #56 - italianchef (09/10/2012) [-]
well the thing is you can believe in both. it says in the bible earth is 4000 years old or whatever for example. the bibile is 2000 years old about. its outdated, 4000 was their best guess back then
#60 to #59 - whatamidoingwithme (09/10/2012) [-]
Doesn't fit in the concept of book sent by an all knowing being, you know.
User avatar #61 to #60 - italianchef (09/10/2012) [-]
it wasnt sent by an all knowing being. it was written by people biased towards one side of a belief. on that note, i dont think that its even a key concept in my religion. its indifferent to the most important stuff
#63 to #61 - whatamidoingwithme (09/10/2012) [-]
That's the point.

If you do not follow the origin of your religion, or believe in the book it supposedly sent. You do not believe in that religion, you are either a deist or belong to a different cult.

Everyone is free to believe, but understand the difference between following a religion and believing in god. If you do not believe in that religion, then you might as well be a Muslim because allegedly it is the same god, just different book.
User avatar #64 to #63 - italianchef (09/10/2012) [-]
before i respond are you atheist, or religious, or what?
#65 to #64 - whatamidoingwithme (09/10/2012) [-]
I do not believe in a god, i have nothing against religious people or people who believe in a god, though.

I do not like calling myself an atheist, because that term is thrown around a lot and most people who call them atheists are angst teenagers.

By the way, that's a bit biased.
User avatar #69 to #65 - italianchef (09/10/2012) [-]
for these purposes, il call you athiest, sorry if that offends you. i rather not have it that an atheist tell me how to practice or follow my religion seeing as they dont, seeing as i generally know more about it, no offense. and also, you dont have to believe exactly what your religion tells you all the time, as youve probably seen with some quotes from the old testament. just because i dont do/believe in everything that the bible says doesnt mean that im not catholic. it just means im me. its almost as if youre trying to say that to be catholic i have to be part of a matched set. and we arent even talking about an important part of my religion. muslims christians and jews may have the same god but we all have different beliefs. also know this; the history of all of the religions are the same so basically 50% of the books are the same.

tl;dr- you are misinformed as far as my religion and this topic goes, and since you arent religious yourself please dont tell me how to practice my religion. i dont tell you that since you dont call yourself an atheist that you might as well be religious, which is a pretty good comparison to what you said earlier
#75 to #69 - whatamidoingwithme (09/10/2012) [-]
I might be religious, yes. Point is, what separates Muslims from Christians or these two from Jews is the book they believe in, ultimately they are all believing in the same god.

You are free to believe what you think is right, but fitting them into wrong religion is a problem. Not believe in your religion and claim to be a part of it is wrong, isn't it? If i believed in a god and didn't follow the book completely, i would simply say i believe in god. Because i am not a part of that religion.

You are completely biased against people who do not believe, nothing to do discuss at this point. Also, i do know about Christianity and Islam, Judaism to some degree too, i might be believing in one of them if i didn't know them.
User avatar #94 to #75 - italianchef (09/10/2012) [-]
what separates the three religions is the prophets that they do or do not believe in, so you are wrong in the sense that you are saying that the book is the most important part of religion when its not, the beliefs and practices of a specific religion or sect of religion is like the differences between lets say protestant religions and catholicism. everyone obviously has their own personal beliefs about things, that doesnt mean they dont belong to a certain religion. everyone is different. if what youre saying is true, there would literally be billions of different religions. people will be people and have opinions, not religious robots who believe literally every word that they are told about religion.the book isnt the religion. its the guidelines for the religions, not rules you are forbidden to break or you go straight to hell. thats simply not how it works.
im not biased against people who dont believe but you seem to have the wrong idea about how being in a religion actually is. im not saying you dont know about religions, but generally the textbook knowledge that people have of them is wrong in the sense that it says what the religion is about but not what people actually do.
#98 to #94 - whatamidoingwithme (09/10/2012) [-]
There is billions of different religions are already, some are more popular.

For example one says answer is 20, other says 30, and another says it's 40. You are saying it's 24, while closer to 20, it still is different.

User avatar #409 to #98 - italianchef (09/10/2012) [-]
i understand what your trying to say, but the thing is its not right. someone who doesnt believe any of the answers has no right to say that when people believe one thing its actually different.
User avatar #80 to #65 - faithrider (09/10/2012) [-]
let me put it this way. atheists say there is no God whatso ever. that is the definition, and there are more people like this than angsat teenagers.

agnostics believe one of two things. first, there is no way to prove there is or isn't a God.
there is a second type who don't know if there is a God and don't know for sure if you can prove it.


thought i would help you decide which describes you best...
#83 to #80 - whatamidoingwithme (09/10/2012) [-]
I do know their definitions, by the way term agnostic is not exclusive, and atheist means someone who does not believe in a religion.

Agnostic atheist is someone who does not believe and says there is no way we can know.
Agnostic theist is someone who believes and says there is no way we can know.

Gnostic ones are sure of their beliefs.

By definition i am an agnostic atheist, however i do not like the most people who call themselves atheists.
User avatar #85 to #83 - faithrider (09/10/2012) [-]
interesting. why do you think there is no way to know God?
#88 to #85 - whatamidoingwithme (09/10/2012) [-]
Unless god itself comes to prove, we proof or disproof it's existence. Only thing you can do is disprove parts of books and that's it.

God, the almighty creator most believe, if capable of creating a universe, and doesn't want to prove it, can simply not.
User avatar #92 to #88 - faithrider (09/10/2012) [-]
there are many instances where he has and he has been rejected. Jesus himself came and performed miracles, and he was still killed for blaspheming. basically the times he has come most don't believe it is him. really what do you want a burning bush like in moses' time? nowadays that is a trick easily pulled off by any body with a pyro license who is competent with electronics. the proof i have is for example, if you go to the Louvre and look at the Mona Lisa what do you see? who created that... we know the painter exists because there is a painting.
#103 to #92 - whatamidoingwithme (09/10/2012) [-]
That many instances happened years ago where something we regularly did today could be counted as miracles too.

All prophets allegedly performed miracles, doesn't make you believe in a different religion?

Problem is, there is no proof that universe was created, only absence of knowledge which people fill with Gods. When people said earth was flat, it was blasphemy to disagree, now we know it is not flat, and we also know reason of things which were once miracles, like falling stars.

Absence of knowledge is not proof of belief.
#89 to #88 - whatamidoingwithme (09/10/2012) [-]
Can't prove or disprove*, i am sleepy.
+18
#37 to #35 - nengcaste **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
#106 to #37 - elamosupremo (09/10/2012) [-]
Woah "impress", now that IS a cool word.
#147 to #37 - ghettoswag (09/10/2012) [-]
"Now I'm not easy to impress. WOAH A BLUE CAR!"
#196 to #35 - robotrino (09/10/2012) [-]
Dumb religious people cast shadows on smart religious people. The dumb ones have a voice that's too loud.
#11 - FillupMiCrevis (09/10/2012) [-]
Christians - 1
Atheists - 1
Scientists - 1

He makes everybody win :3
#298 - dwarfman (09/10/2012) [-]
Various religious organizations have helped advance the cause of Science and Mathematics. It is a purely American mentality that the two are rivals, both on the theist (backward hick evangelicals) and atheist (disgruntled 8th graders claiming to be atheist for attention) sides of the argument. It should also be stated Atheism =/= science, nor does theism present a rivalry to science.   
   
Both hold the other as destructive, disregard their contributions, and ignore their own sins. Islam gave us massive advances in mathematics during the rule of Suleiman the Great. Christianity gave us genetics (Mendel) and geology (Jesuit school). Hinduism gave us the basic laws of physics which so much is built on.   
   
If both sides continue with their close-mind world views, none shall benefit. Now if you excuse me I am hiding in my bunker while the 			****		 storm brews.
Various religious organizations have helped advance the cause of Science and Mathematics. It is a purely American mentality that the two are rivals, both on the theist (backward hick evangelicals) and atheist (disgruntled 8th graders claiming to be atheist for attention) sides of the argument. It should also be stated Atheism =/= science, nor does theism present a rivalry to science.

Both hold the other as destructive, disregard their contributions, and ignore their own sins. Islam gave us massive advances in mathematics during the rule of Suleiman the Great. Christianity gave us genetics (Mendel) and geology (Jesuit school). Hinduism gave us the basic laws of physics which so much is built on.

If both sides continue with their close-mind world views, none shall benefit. Now if you excuse me I am hiding in my bunker while the **** storm brews.
#68 - anon (09/10/2012) [-]
He believed that it actually might lead to the proof of a God. Everything out of nothing. But then organized religion rejected the idea.
-2
#70 to #68 - itsmypenis **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #72 to #70 - richardastley ONLINE (09/10/2012) [-]
The ******* Big Bang Theory.
-1
#76 to #72 - itsmypenis **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #84 to #76 - richardastley ONLINE (09/10/2012) [-]
Pope John Paul II disagreed to some extent by trying to argue that the universe is finite, which is consistent with the belief that there is a beginning, middle, and end to everything (including space). This is inconsistent with the Big Bang Theory and how the universe expands.
User avatar #78 to #68 - faithrider (09/10/2012) [-]
and actually the evidence i have does go along that lines. imo it does prove God...
User avatar #86 to #78 - noblexfenrir (09/10/2012) [-]
No....no it doesn't....
User avatar #111 to #86 - richardw ONLINE (09/10/2012) [-]
what if God created the Big Bang?..... ********
User avatar #122 to #111 - noblexfenrir (09/10/2012) [-]
Same as saying a universe farting fairy made the big bang, it's a thought experiment where the original premise fails when brought up to skepticism yet the process itself is still sound. Which is why the big bang theory purely explains formation, not creation.
User avatar #87 to #86 - faithrider (09/10/2012) [-]
where is your evidence that the Big Bang Theory disproves God?
User avatar #95 to #87 - noblexfenrir (09/10/2012) [-]
It doesn't have anything to do with god...it explains the formation of the universe. It has absolutely nothing to do with it's creation or any god.
User avatar #97 to #95 - faithrider (09/10/2012) [-]
but what started it? what force pushed the super dense what ever that started the Big Bang?
User avatar #99 to #97 - noblexfenrir (09/10/2012) [-]
We don't know, and there is no credited theory for what did only supposed hypothesis in the infantile stages. That is all god is as well, a thought experiment with no evidence.
User avatar #101 to #99 - faithrider (09/10/2012) [-]
if you look at a painting you know that there was a painter, right?
User avatar #115 to #101 - noblexfenrir (09/10/2012) [-]
You would say the grand canyon is beautiful no? That was created through natural processes.

The cosmological argument has been refuted and destroyed many times, I hardly feel we should have to rehash it here no? The basic refuting idea is that 1.) where did the creator come from? (you cannot say it did not have one without knowing it otherwise you are saying "it has this attribute because I say so" and you seem intelligent enough to see why that is flawed) 2.) evidence the universe even NEEDED a creator, or was just created by an unknown natural process. 3.) you also need to prove god before you can start putting him as an answer to things, instead you are first putting him as the answer and saying that proves he is real.
User avatar #107 to #101 - ilovetocuddle (09/10/2012) [-]
Both of you Shut the **** up.
User avatar #116 to #107 - noblexfenrir (09/10/2012) [-]
Why this is fun...
#104 to #101 - anon (09/10/2012) [-]
commencing segue into different premise
User avatar #287 to #99 - impo **User deleted account** (09/10/2012) [-]
I think you're missing the big picture here, until it's completely (disa)proven ,a thought experiment remains a thought experiment, meaning it's completely possible that even God exists. Also, when speaking of evidence, you have to have in mind that human intellect cannot still see ALL the evidence since some of that may only exist in the moment... or simplyfied, if time was linear, some of the evidence would be a dot and other evidence would be an interval from a to b ( here's where timetravel comes in handy). CONCLUSION: ALL of the evidence is the final (dis)proof of ALL the thought experiments, and until then, Humanity itself, is too small to reallize who/what is God.

Post Scriptum - Sorry for the grammar xD
User avatar #415 to #287 - noblexfenrir (09/11/2012) [-]
I have a copy and paste of a previous explanation of why our subjective knowledge doesn't mean we make objective claims.

"Okay fine I go through with explaining this **** alot so one more time can't hurt.

First of all, humans are not omniscient creatures, we base our determination of existence on evidence and knowledge. It is subjective, but we have no other possibility of claiming knowledge is everything is based on an objective universe in relation to ourselves.

So, why exactly is asking "Prove god doesn't exist" a REALLY ******* retarded question? Because you cannot prove a negative, all evidence for proving a negative is in direct correlation with the LACK of evidence for the affirmative. Humans use this process for EVERYTHING (unicorns, aliens, big foot, loch ness monster, slenderman, etc etc etc) EXCEPT GOD. Why? Because they WANT it to be true. This doesn't make it true though now does it?

Also it's funny because god can only be real through absolute evidence because he is not possible through probability since he is given the wonderful attribute of creating the universe. Meaning no evidence=No god."
User avatar #419 to #415 - impo **User deleted account** (09/14/2012) [-]
*Sigh* I see you didn't even look into what a "god" would be in definition. If you were to take these things literally[as in how they're written] and see God as an "Something" or "Someone" then all you wrote would be the complete and absolute truth. Then "God" would be in the same class as the vampires,fairies,unicorns, you name them, but as you yourself said, there would still be a lingering wish for god to be real and here's where YOUR problems start. Why,you ask? What problems, you ask? Well, we as humans, are truly special by nature. Humans, have reason my friend. YOU have reason, intelligence, logic and many other characteristics which make you human ,hence you are able to think freely, but you're still naive since you yourself have just proven god to be real by your own words.
How? Quote: " Is man one of God's blunders? Or is God one of man's blunders?" by Nietzsche.
"... EXCEPT GOD. Why? Because they WANT it to be true. ..." You admited that there is a WISH. When a human WANTS something he just creates it. Yes my friend,humans have reason and reason is the power of creation itself, since it's the power to know everything, the most powerfull weapon that can exist, an anomally of nature itself! Reason, is on the same level as a god! We all have it, but none can truly explain WHY. If one wishes it, it will exist in mind, and sooner or later it will come out of it.

You see. With that sole reason,with a wish one can become a god and that's why, my friend, we[ educated religious people ] do not take God as a literall being or a thing, but a simbol, a cause of begining,ending and simply existing. Let's just say, God is simply now. God may also not be now.

And I also pray, that you're dead wrong, cause, by your logic, you have the same probabilty to be god as I,a complete 100%, because we don't need to be omniscient or objective to wish a simple wish.

P.S. Look up "Asura's Wrath". It's about an angry man beating "god" with only anger and a wish to pound.Ironic.
User avatar #135 to #97 - pokemonstheshiz (09/10/2012) [-]
The currently held theory has to do with our current understanding of the "nothing" of space. It is in fact something, matter and antimatter constantly coming into existence and canceling each other out. Given an infinite set of time, at some point some positive energy would remain in this "nothing" and an influx of energy into the system of this universe could theoretically yield a huge reaction of some sort. The energy part is important because our universe seems to always bring the net force of things to zero. This theory also explains the expansion of the universe, as the gravity inside "nothing" is reversed, though I'm not sure why, but I'm no astrophysicist yet.

Now this is all theory of course, based on our observation and best understandings of how our universe works. This obviously neither proves nor disproves God, nor would any actual data anyone could obtain. Because God is a metaphysical being, and the metaphysical cannot be proven nor disproven.
User avatar #127 to #68 - pokemonstheshiz (09/10/2012) [-]
To add to this, even Sir Issac Newton was a Christian. He also believed his work would prove the existence of god. Needless to say, science and religion can exist together, as long as you're not a dick about it.
#90 - petal (09/10/2012) [-]
>Go to comment section expecting *********

>Only half *********

>Still disappointed with the utter lack of intelligence and logic in internet arguments

>Even more disappointed that some people think it's about the show
#58 - mostlyjunk (09/10/2012) [-]
I'm from Belgium and didn't know this, thanks OP thats pretty cool.
#251 - dickthebutt (09/10/2012) [-]
only americans are butthurted with this....
In Europe they have another type of mentallity that is not thinking always about "how cool is to be atheist"
and asians... well, are asians... lol
+1
#252 to #251 - mrgreatnames **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #243 - cullenatorguy (09/10/2012) [-]
The guy is Catholic. Plenty of Catholics don' t believe in creationism. Hell, Pope John Paul II said evolution is no longer just a hypothesis.
+4
#244 to #243 - mrgreatnames **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
#132 - thechosentroll (09/10/2012) [-]
This image has expired
So? Darwin was going to be a priest too.
+16
#14 - recoveryseven **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #146 to #14 - daentraya (09/10/2012) [-]
I like books. It pains me to see books getting ripped up or destroyed, even a bible or Twilight.
But talking about books. I dont remember any names, but werent there this big scholar city with many ******* books, Alexandria i think, and some smart woman teacher and religious people being pissed? And some riots and painful murder of said teacher? And some book destruction? Or did i just remember it all wrong..
#199 to #14 - BroadSword (09/10/2012) [-]
Catholic missionaries are partly responsible for the population influx in parts of Africa, where parents are having several children but can only barely feed themselves. The missionaries spread Christianity and also obviously the catholic part aswell. The poorly educated people inhabiting these places now dont use contraception as they were told not to, and this is causing the hunger problem to be dramatically escalated. Thanks Catholic missionaries.
#406 to #199 - brosephus (09/10/2012) [-]
I suppose you'd like to blame the AIDs epidemic in Africa on them too, using the same logic?
User avatar #417 to #406 - BroadSword (09/11/2012) [-]
Im sure it would have exacerbated it to some extent. Wouldnt go as far as blaming them for it.
#16 to #14 - anon (09/10/2012) [-]
science protests...wut
+2
#18 to #16 - recoveryseven **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #54 to #18 - warrenzthehero (09/10/2012) [-]
Those aren't Atheists. Those are Dicktheists, followers of the true Son of Idiocy, Douchebagge.
User avatar #17 to #16 - srskate (09/10/2012) [-]
a bunch of athiests are protesting to take down a cross that formed from the wreckage of the ground zero mosque
#20 to #17 - brosephus (09/10/2012) [-]
I'm pretty sure that's wrong...what you said there...wrong.
User avatar #22 to #20 - srskate (09/10/2012) [-]
I can say with certainty, it happened. It may be long over, however
#27 to #22 - brosephus (09/10/2012) [-]
Yea, atheists are against a cross at ground zero, made from the wreckage of the WTC, but I don't think it was made from the wreckage of the ground zero mosque.

I may be wrong.
User avatar #208 to #27 - srskate (09/10/2012) [-]
Oh my!
Im so sorry, i didnt notice my mistake. My bad.
#405 to #208 - brosephus (09/10/2012) [-]
No big
#242 - tomanydiscos (09/10/2012) [-]
MFW the comments
User avatar #145 - novabird (09/10/2012) [-]
yeah he tested it on little kids.
#148 to #145 - somedonkus (09/10/2012) [-]
And that's how you were created.
User avatar #149 to #148 - novabird (09/10/2012) [-]
nope, i know how i was created.
#151 to #149 - somedonkus (09/10/2012) [-]
my mom and dad said that a stork dropped me on the doorstep, how about you?
User avatar #152 to #151 - novabird (09/10/2012) [-]
they told me in full detail because my mom was a surgeons aid at the time.
#154 to #152 - somedonkus (09/10/2012) [-]
Great mom... lol
User avatar #155 to #154 - novabird (09/10/2012) [-]
never again will i ask that question.
#157 to #155 - somedonkus (09/10/2012) [-]
wait until your kids ask
User avatar #158 to #157 - novabird (09/10/2012) [-]
jokes on you i'm never having kids.
#162 to #159 - novabird (09/10/2012) [-]
This image has expired
because i have no interest in reproducing, dating, physical contact, having a relationship, sex and all the other stuff connected to that list. that's simply how i work, the way i think is nothing like a normal person and i have no maternal instincts regarding human babies, the only type of baby that i can handle is baby parrots. this is what nova looked like at about 1 month.
#164 to #162 - somedonkus (09/10/2012) [-]
I leanerd about that type of sexuality in cultural anthropology, but iforgot what its called, oh well. Make sure you start a college fund for Nova. As they say "they have to leave the nest one day".
User avatar #166 to #164 - novabird (09/10/2012) [-]
asexual. but people are misusing the word lately because they think being asexual is trendy somehow or they are doing to be a part of the group, they misuse the word when they say they are asexual and then they say they are in a relationship with(insert whatever here) and they still have sex to please their partner(this can't exist if your asexual).
#168 to #166 - somedonkus (09/10/2012) [-]
Yup, that was it but i couldn't remember if that meant that one reproduced within itself lol
#169 to #168 - somedonkus (09/10/2012) [-]
lol, stupid trendy people
#102 - anustraveller (09/10/2012) [-]
Comment Picture
#24 - anon (09/10/2012) [-]
Most religious people have no problem with science. Science takes care of the physical, religion has the spiritual. It's like carrying a laptop and a bottle of cola in the same bag: They do different things, and as long as one doesn't spill all over the other, you've got no problems. Also, only assholes pressurize their cola to spray it all over other people. Unfortunately, for a vocal minority, the word "God" is a higher function "OFF" switch.
User avatar #38 to #24 - tepeniam (09/10/2012) [-]
Oh god, I hate when my laptop spills all over my Cola. It's awful.
#371 - sexybarracuda (09/10/2012) [-]
I really like this. It shows that individuals can practice religion and have a scientific understanding of the world around them. For all of you single minded religious folk AND you pretentious athiests ***** who bash religion at every chance you get...please take note of this priest who manages to believe in a higher power than himself as well as study the universe in a practical, scientific way.


and for all of those out there who have 'funny' condescending responses to this, just remember one thing...
<<
#278 - alexthecanadian (09/10/2012) [-]
Well, that takes care of that argument.
#194 - theluppijackal (09/10/2012) [-]
FINALLY. Thank God someone knows this besides me. Literally.
To continue on this post, the priest was actually ridiculed for his theory, being called 'ridiculous' and 'impossible' as most scientists at the time insisted on a cosmological constant, as in, an infinitely old universe with no age.
#153 - Gizhoe (09/10/2012) [-]
Comment Picture
#140 - exclusiveshait (09/10/2012) [-]
Just now, when i entert this picture, it had 666 likes. What kind of priest was he?
[ 378 comments ]
Leave a comment
 Friends (0)