Egyp. Good evening gentleman/ladies, Time to get classy. Get out your drink of choice and open 3 tabs. RainyMood on the first tab 7rl.in/RainyMood ClassyFirepla Egyp Good evening gentleman/ladies Time to get classy Get out your drink of choice and open 3 tabs RainyMood on the first tab 7rl in/RainyMood ClassyFirepla
Upload
Login or register
Leave a comment Refresh Comments (658)
[ 658 comments ]
Anonymous comments allowed.
72 comments displayed.
#6 - syntheticdoll ONLINE
Reply +135
(11/13/2012) [-]
#4 - Vandeekree
Reply +96
(11/13/2012) [-]
There's also theories that it was started by an volcano an/or earthquake and the first born child in Egyptian society slept on the floor while the younger children were forced to sleep up on the room of the house and so when the volcano released methane pockets that hung low in the air, only the first born suffocated.

Atheists: Wasn't God, natural phenomenon.
Theists: So it did happen and that's how God did it.
So apparently nothing lost, nothing gained.
#334 to #4 - theninjakai
Reply +5
(11/14/2012) [-]
Everybody wins.
#28 - slapchoppin
Reply +79
(11/13/2012) [-]
>implying god doesn't use science

the bible just says **** happened it doesn't care how it happened
#113 - mikhailovych
Reply +56
(11/14/2012) [-]
#123 to #113 - scramf ONLINE
Reply +31
(11/14/2012) [-]
Oh look, Godzilla was destroying Japan again. And where was Atheistzilla? At home reading classy **** and being respectful to his surroundings.

CHRISTIANS 1 ATHEISTS 1

(Picture unrelated)
#328 to #123 - fyaq
Reply +3
(11/14/2012) [-]
Christian god created the heavens and the earth

Atheist god has yet to do anything. Whens the last time you heard of him giving his only son to die for you? Greedy ****.

Christians 2: Atheists 1
#339 to #328 - scramf ONLINE
Reply +17
(11/14/2012) [-]
Tom Cruise jumped on Oprah's couch, Not Tom Cruise did not.

Christians: 2
Athiests: 1
Tom Cruise: Why?

Let's just all take a happy moment to realize that we aren't Scientologists. Or Tom Cruise

And when is the last time Atheist God killed everyone on the planet by floods cause he done ****** up or some **** like that? Never, that is when.

Christians: 2
Atheists: 2
Tom Cruise: Why are you still here Tom? Leave.
#487 to #328 - rawrasaurus
Reply +1
(11/14/2012) [-]
MFW "Atheist god".
#507 to #487 - fyaq
Reply +3
(11/14/2012) [-]
its a joke
#484 to #328 - rawrasaurus
0
has deleted their comment [-]
#692 to #123 - atheistzilla
Reply 0
(11/18/2012) [-]
i say
#71 - lulzdealer
Reply +43
(11/14/2012) [-]
This image has expired
i love how a lot of aspects of religion can in fact be proven plausible by science.
#109 to #71 - anon
Reply 0
(11/14/2012) [-]
-And then it turns into a paradox because theoretically these events could have been executed by a higher power (whichever you choose to believe, or not believe). It's really sad how the majority of you who call yourselves some sort of scientists applaud from behind a computer screen but aren't able to think deeply and argue for yourselves. Do you love that? (I also am a great supporter of science, not a butthurt catholic/religious radical, but I don't think it's wise to jump to the conclusion that you know god doesn't exist in any form.) Stop clapping.
#112 to #109 - lulzdealer
Reply +15
(11/14/2012) [-]
i am religious and i'll clap all i want.
#119 to #112 - mayplo
Reply +4
(11/14/2012) [-]
Comment Picture
#514 to #109 - sacredmagic ONLINE
Reply +1
(11/14/2012) [-]
He didn't say these events couldn't be performed by a higher power, only that aspects of religion can be proven plausible. Holy hell, the post is one piece of bad luck after another. The odds are enormous of all those things happening in succession. It could have been random chance and it could have been the product of a higher power. We can't know! It is impossible to know! You label the entirety of a community shallow, uneducated thinkers? Please, that thought is shallow and uneducated. Dolt.
#391 to #109 - defender
Reply 0
(11/14/2012) [-]
#26 - icewraith
+32
has deleted their comment [-]
#331 - redwolfradolf
Reply +27
(11/14/2012) [-]
Could it be theoretically possible that God uses natural and rational events to acheive his goals?
#342 to #331 - phuckinthingsucks
Reply 0
(11/14/2012) [-]
Don't be ridiculous that wouldn't make sense at all...

sarcasm
#345 to #342 - redwolfradolf
Reply 0
(11/14/2012) [-]
so kidding aside, can we all agree that there could HYPOTHETICALLY be a god, and that it doesn't HAVE to be "Magic"
#353 to #345 - srslyjakecease
Reply +1
(11/14/2012) [-]
his ability to manipulate the forces of nature could be considered "magic"   
   
also, if god doesnt exist, explain how this box holds so many cats.
his ability to manipulate the forces of nature could be considered "magic"

also, if god doesnt exist, explain how this box holds so many cats.


#477 to #353 - sarahbrowniez
Reply +2
(11/14/2012) [-]
cats.. how do they work
cats.. how do they work
#350 to #345 - phuckinthingsucks
Reply 0
(11/14/2012) [-]
Well I'd say yes but this is fj after all
#405 to #331 - appleboom
Reply 0
(11/14/2012) [-]
Say the God of the Bible is real. Why would he set up a system and then circumvent it when he feels like it? It seems much more plausible that someone with such power, who can also foresee events, would tweak the system in such a way that these things happen exactly when he wants them too.
#599 to #331 - coldactill
Reply 0
(11/14/2012) [-]
To a degree, yes, it's possible. From a Christian's perspective, God is an omnipotent being and is capable of creating and destroying absolutely anything. Therefore, God > Science. A commonly accepted belief of today is that the Biblical creation process was a result of God making evolution and the big bang, and having a 100 billion year process occur up to Adam, when in fact this doesn't make sense. For starters, the Bible accounts that death entered the world when Adam ate of the sinful fruit, which was about 6000 years ago. The evolution process requires death, and therefore, it couldn't work as there was no death before Adam. More importantly, why would God make a billion year process, that isn't symbolic of anything, that he could've done, being the supernatural entity he is, in a single breath? The point I'm trying to make is, when the Bible says, 'And then God made it flood' you can believe any select option of a million ways that it might of happened, but ultimately the truth is that God made it happen, and he did it however he chose to do it.
#352 to #331 - cullenatorguy
Reply +2
(11/14/2012) [-]
Could it be theoretically possible that Krishna uses natural and rational events to achieve his goals?
#348 to #331 - srslyjakecease
Reply +4
(11/14/2012) [-]
of course it its, to say otherwise is to spit in the face of science, all the while attempting to use it as a method of disproving something you dislike.

You can believe something does or does not exist, but until it is proven one way or another, you'd either have to be religious, a fool, or perhaps both.

The events coinciding neither prove nor disprove a god, just as existence neither proves nor disproves a god. The shear unmeasurability and untestability of a deity makes it a moot point to argue one way or another, as neither side will EVER give enough proof to the other to persuade them.

#354 to #348 - redwolfradolf
Reply +3
(11/14/2012) [-]
I'd have to say that all of those events happening so close to each other is one hell of a coincidence.
#552 to #354 - pokemonstheshiz
Reply 0
(11/14/2012) [-]
We don't have proof any of that actually happened, that is a scientific theory proposed to explain those events in the Bible making the assumption they happened. Save for a time machine, we won't be able to prove events happened or how they happened. History is not a science, history is literature written by the victor.
#660 to #552 - redwolfradolf
Reply 0
(11/14/2012) [-]
Maybe this particular event did or didn't happen, but did you know that if you go to the city of Jericho today, you'll find it's walls buried under thirty feet of earth.
Archeologists say that there was evidence of a massive collapse.
#664 to #660 - pokemonstheshiz
Reply 0
(11/14/2012) [-]
I was not aware of that. There are however events in every religion attributed to higher powers or epic stories that can be explained by scientific phenomenon (for the most part).

www.youtube.com/watch?v=7sdYlRBISmU
One example.
#672 to #664 - redwolfradolf
Reply 0
(11/14/2012) [-]
And again we return to my original point.
#370 to #354 - srslyjakecease
Reply 0
(11/14/2012) [-]
so is life, and the mere existence of the universe.     
   
I dont disagree with you, i'm just saying this will never swing the religion argument one way or another.   
The odds of this happening as told above are 1 in a million, if even that.   
   
Read my lower post, and you'll see another theory as to the cause of the plagues; all most all of which domino off of a volcanic eruption.
so is life, and the mere existence of the universe.

I dont disagree with you, i'm just saying this will never swing the religion argument one way or another.
The odds of this happening as told above are 1 in a million, if even that.

Read my lower post, and you'll see another theory as to the cause of the plagues; all most all of which domino off of a volcanic eruption.
#374 to #370 - redwolfradolf
Reply 0
(11/14/2012) [-]
I'm really to tired to discuss this, but let's just summarize by saying that there are very few people who actually take a purely literalist view of the genisis story.
#376 to #374 - srslyjakecease
Reply 0
(11/14/2012) [-]
I dont see how genesis plays into this, seeing as we were discussing Exodus, but come to the southeastern United States, and ill introduce you to whole organizations of them. (they annoy the piss out of me...)
#378 to #376 - redwolfradolf
Reply 0
(11/14/2012) [-]
1. I live in the southeastern united states

2. sorry, I thought you were talking about creation in that last comment.
#384 to #378 - srslyjakecease
Reply 0
(11/14/2012) [-]
quite all right, i can understand the confusion given my comment on existence, but i was just stating them as other improbable things.   
   
and on another, only semi-related note,  TENNESSEE FTW.
quite all right, i can understand the confusion given my comment on existence, but i was just stating them as other improbable things.

and on another, only semi-related note, TENNESSEE FTW.
#387 to #384 - redwolfradolf
Reply +1
(11/14/2012) [-]
I'm actually from GA, but nice to meet you all the same
#390 to #387 - srslyjakecease
Reply 0
(11/14/2012) [-]
you too lol.

always somewhat satisfying to meet another southerner on the internet
#434 to #390 - redwolfradolf
Reply 0
(11/14/2012) [-]
I suppose it is....
#426 - Pyromie
Reply +23
(11/14/2012) [-]
There is no science that can disprove god...   
   
We (of whom believe in god) KNOW he exists, but we can no more prove his existence than science can disprove it. That is where faith comes into play.    
   
Those of us (Christians) who are intelligent enough to comprehend science understand that divine intervention doesn't have to mean "POOF" There is a miracle, It simply means that it is by the will and grace of god that those scientific occurrences happened in the first place.    
   
He didn't snap his fingers and create the universe, he simply aided in the cosmic matter being where it needed to at that point in time for the big bang to occur, and aided in humanity's evolution into a form similar to his own.    
   
As to why god would let  bad things happen in the first place, or cause them in some instances is simple. Agency.    
   
God lets us as people decide our own fate. Yes, he may have aided in the plagues that occurred, or he may have simply knew they were coming, and gave the prophet that knowledge to use to save his people.    
   
Either way, It was to serve a purpose.    
   
I'm not sure if baptist or protestants understand agency, but in the Mormon (LDS) church (of which I practice) it is also known as free will.    
   
Now some of you may disagree with what I have written, and I respect your right to do so. I do ask that you give me the same respect in allowing me to believe what    
i do, without judgement.    
   
Thank you.
There is no science that can disprove god...

We (of whom believe in god) KNOW he exists, but we can no more prove his existence than science can disprove it. That is where faith comes into play.

Those of us (Christians) who are intelligent enough to comprehend science understand that divine intervention doesn't have to mean "POOF" There is a miracle, It simply means that it is by the will and grace of god that those scientific occurrences happened in the first place.

He didn't snap his fingers and create the universe, he simply aided in the cosmic matter being where it needed to at that point in time for the big bang to occur, and aided in humanity's evolution into a form similar to his own.

As to why god would let bad things happen in the first place, or cause them in some instances is simple. Agency.

God lets us as people decide our own fate. Yes, he may have aided in the plagues that occurred, or he may have simply knew they were coming, and gave the prophet that knowledge to use to save his people.

Either way, It was to serve a purpose.

I'm not sure if baptist or protestants understand agency, but in the Mormon (LDS) church (of which I practice) it is also known as free will.

Now some of you may disagree with what I have written, and I respect your right to do so. I do ask that you give me the same respect in allowing me to believe what
i do, without judgement.

Thank you.
#462 to #426 - PhoJoe
Reply 0
(11/14/2012) [-]
You can't prove a negative, there's no scient that disproves Russel's Teapot. Either than that, not a bad post.
#467 to #462 - Pyromie
Reply +4
(11/14/2012) [-]
I'm not sure what Russell's Teapot is to be honest. I suppose I could google it.

If I may ask, what do you mean, "You can't prove a negative?"

Do you mean it as one cannot prove somethings non-existance?

I'm not sure.

Care to elaborate?
#473 to #467 - PhoJoe
Reply 0
(11/14/2012) [-]
I think a good example of it would be "The Dragon in my Garage" by Carl Sagan from "The Demon-Haunted Word"
It's an analogy for proving a negative.
You need to login to view this link
#479 to #473 - Pyromie
Reply +4
(11/14/2012) [-]
Very interesting read. I can see from that standpoint what you mean. I rather liked his final comment at the end:

"Such “evidence”—no matter how important the dragon advocates consider it—is far from compelling. Once again, the only sensible approach is tentatively to reject the dragon hypothesis, to be open to future data, and to wonder what the cause might be that so many apparently sane and sober people share the same strange delusion."

Note he doesn't say to judge them for believing in it, but rather, wonder what brings them to the same, as he calls it "Delusion". Rather well put.

For me, this once again brings into play Faith. I cannot see, cannot feel, and cannot speak directly to the lord, but I believe in him, for I choose to.

Those who believe differently don't necessarily lack Faith, but they place it where they feel it best rationally should reside, whatever/where ever that may be.

I respect them for doing so, for to blindly follow others, and never once think "What else is there?" is foolish.

I've done my soul searching, I'd like to think myself a learned man, and I ask that others do the same. Reject complacency, and conformity and find what suits you.

Find where you can place your faith, and know, without a shadow of a doubt existing in your mind, that you are sure you've found the truth. Whether it be science, religion, or something unknown, just be sure it is what YOU believe.
#648 to #426 - wolfblackfire **User deleted account**
0
has deleted their comment [-]
#430 to #426 - thexxtalonxx
Reply +1
(11/14/2012) [-]
Awesome post
#437 to #430 - Pyromie
Reply +6
(11/14/2012) [-]
Thank you.

A few comments just struck a nerve.

I know judging them isn't going to help, so Instead of thumbing them down, or ranting and raving on their post, I'd simply post my own beliefs in a collected manner.
#449 to #426 - baconrider
Reply +1
(11/14/2012) [-]
You just had to mention the miracles.
#453 to #449 - Pyromie
Reply +4
(11/14/2012) [-]
Indeed, figured Gamzee was suitable for the topic.
#455 to #453 - baconrider
Reply +1
(11/14/2012) [-]
Gamzee is always related.
Gamzee is always related.
#454 to #426 - evictedone
Reply +1
(11/14/2012) [-]
Sir/ma'am, thank you for your clarity and your lack of hostility in pursuing and stating your point of view. I, myself, am unreligious, but I do not turn down the views of others unless it is they who throw the first stone.
In this case, the stone was not thrown, but was kindly handed. And, for that, I turn my ear to you, and I listen as closely as I may. Thank you.
#460 to #454 - Pyromie
Reply +4
(11/14/2012) [-]
Thanks very much for your comment. I respect fellow individuals who can see the difference between an attack, and an opinion.

Sir Nicholas The first.

Or just Nick.

Or just Pyromie.

Or just Hey, You.

All work for me!

#531 to #426 - sacredmagic ONLINE
Reply +1
(11/14/2012) [-]
Ahhhh brilliant. Some level-headed thinking!
#443 to #426 - baroger
Reply +2
(11/14/2012) [-]
i love mormons, and being mormon. SCIENCE+RELIGION=BETTER KNOWLEDGE
#132 - frink
Reply +21
(11/14/2012) [-]
I believe in God and if this is true, then it could be that God thing by just making one thing happen (the algae bloom) He created a chain of reactions to fulfill the prophecies of Moses. It makes God even more amazing that He knows how to orchestrate major events in the future by just making/changing one little thing. It reminds me of The Plateau from Fringe. So I wouldn't see these scientific explanations in conflict with believing God, but rather adds even more mystery as to the powers of God.
#140 to #132 - grimsho
Reply +21
(11/14/2012) [-]
I'm athiest and I'm able to realise that if god were real and able to create miracles, they couldn't just happen out of nowhere. God would need to alter how the winds are blowing, etc; so of course any supposed "miracle" would be able to be solved by science, because it happened in this world god supposedly created so intricately.

Why can't most people agree to let science and religion work together?
#150 to #140 - nigglettt
Reply +3
(11/14/2012) [-]
Thanks for existing man. You too frink.
#545 to #140 - foulsmell
Reply +1
(11/14/2012) [-]
I'm back again, after having reread your comment. This one concerns your mentioning of "miracles".

You say that you are "able to realise that if god were real and able to [perform] miracles, they couldn't just happen out of nowhere. God would need to alter how the winds are blowing, etc; so of course any supposed 'miracle' would be able to be solved by science".

A miracle is defined as a suspension of the natural order. An omnipotent creator, as all religious institutions would have us believe their deities are, would not have to adhere to the conditions under which it created the universe in order to perform a miracle. For instance, if god needs "to alter how the winds are blowing" in order to misdirect a tornado (a tornado which said god created in the first place, mind you) from obliterating a town, in what way is that a miracle? If god managed to guide the tornado over top the town, without causing any damage at all, or even causing a discrepancy in the town's wind currents, that would be a miracle. Of course, no such thing has been observed. But had it occurred, hypothetically speaking, that only begs the question: Why did god put the tornado on course through the town in the first place?
#481 to #140 - foulsmell
Reply 0
(11/14/2012) [-]
The inherent issue is that religious theism concerns the unknown while science concerns what is and can be known. Taking an anthropological perspective, cultures have fashioned deities in such ways that they are undetectable, immeasurable, and unfalsifiable. Hence, there's no reason to suggest that the universe is the product of a conscious entity, as that is a hypothesis which cannot be tested. Giving theists the benefit of a doubt that just maybe the universe was created by a "god" is impractical and unscientific.

Also, I find the amount of praise your comment has received a little unsettling, as well. While it may seem like a respectful position to give religious people the benefit of a doubt, it is intellectually dishonest and seeks to patronize the religious community rather than educate it. Also, think of the plethora of questions you have just roused: Which religion is science cooperating with? Is the religion theistic or atheistic? Yes, such a thing exists. Believe it or not, religion and atheism are not antonymous to each other. Which god or pantheon does science acknowledge? Which doctrine is canonical? The tone you strike in your comment indicates that you are giving Abrahamic monotheists the benefit of a doubt (and their respective, contradicting denominations). But what of Hindus, Taoists, Stalanists, and Scientologists? The only theistic branch of thought which even grazes being at least moderately compatible with science is deism. But, then again, deism implies an MIA god (a deity which created the universe and then ceased to be or no longer operates in the universe), and thus one which cannot intervene with natural phenomena.

What a great deal of irony that frink happens to believe that "scientific explanations... [add] even more mystery as to the powers of [the God of Abraham]" when a Hellenist would say the same of Zeus and his pantheon.

TL;DR: Science and religion are incompatible.


#529 to #481 - sacredmagic ONLINE
Reply 0
(11/14/2012) [-]
He wasn't saying that religion and science have to agree or function in tandem, only that they may both apply logic to situations to see how [insert deity here] may have influenced the natural world to influence creation...floods...plagues. He wasn't saying any specific religion was right, only that the theories (however outlandish) of each religion could be proved scientifically. He was saying that it is within the two parties' power to agree to disagree (regarding the existence or lack thereof) of a deity. I choose to believe in God because I believe there is something more beyond our universe. And if I'm wrong, what has come of it? I have worked all my life for moral correctness and will eventually return to the earth from whence I came.
#356 to #140 - sterlingarcher
Reply 0
(11/14/2012) [-]
Wow. dude, have a thumb. you've earned it.
#166 to #140 - johnshepherd
Reply 0
(11/14/2012) [-]
An atheist that wants science and religion to work together just like me?
An atheist that wants science and religion to work together just like me?
#127 - SACAPUNTAS
Reply +18
(11/14/2012) [-]
Uh, yeah.
God mainpulated all these things to transpire in tandem.
What do you honestly think, God waved his magic finger and things just fell the **** out of the sky?
If you honestly think all of these things can happen so facilely and swiftly without any divine intervention, then that's a quaint problem.
Science without Religion is lame, and Religion without Science is blind.
Go ahead and thumb me down, but be ware that you're disagreeing with everyone's pal, Albert ************* Einstein.
#128 to #127 - anon
Reply 0
(11/14/2012) [-]
Awesome finally someone who has a shred of intelligence
#147 to #127 - mechaemperor
Reply +1
(11/14/2012) [-]
1. Einstein's achievements don't make him flawless in every aspect. Still, he most likely did not mean religion as a doctrine, but rather t spirituality, as in trying to give everything purpose. He was not an atheist, but he wasn't precisely devoted either
2. These events could happen without any divine intervention, the belief in a greater power holding the strings is irrelevant and unnecessary.
3. There could have been divine intervention, but that doesn't make it the most likely probability.
#152 to #147 - SACAPUNTAS
Reply 0
(11/14/2012) [-]
You're saying all that crapola is likely to have happened completely by happenstance?
Okay, alright, cool beans I respect your opinion.
But let me propose a question: Do you believe We are an accident? A helter-skelter coincidence that we were all given life..
Which means there is no meaning to life.
Which means, why am I even still living?
Everything I've ever strived for, everything I've ever loved, will be gone with the wind when morning is no longer morning.

So maybe, the idea of religion is just a conduit for our subconscious fears? Maybe it was just invented for our own solace, acting as a safenet for the terrors everpresent in the back of our minds.
Pretty interesting.
#186 to #152 - mechaemperor
Reply +1
(11/14/2012) [-]
I don't really believe anything. I know that there are many possibilities as to why everything is as it is. I have not been convinced by any of the possible explanations religion offers, and believe me, I have done my research in theology.

There doesn't have to be a meaning to life. It just is. If you want meaning, you can give it, some people do it by religious belief, others by their life work, others simply by living.

There is no direct answer as to why you're still living. You can choose, as I said, your religious explanation, or seek an alternative, or not be bothered by the question at all.

It is very likely everything means nothing in the end, but you are alive here and now, you can apparently make choices and feel things. Act as you will, considering the consequences of your actions.

It's possible religion was created in that way, it's possible a certain doctrine is correct, it's possible they're all wrong. Religious tendencies are quite predictable from primitive humans, as we evolved, they stopped having the responsibility of explaining natural phenomenon, to explaining the possibility of supernatural phenomenon, to really settling itself in helping people deal with their own mortality and ease the burden of the responsibility of choice.
#130 to #127 - PedoNazi
Reply +2
(11/14/2012) [-]
your username and comment are yes
your username and comment are yes
#138 to #127 - copperoxideking
Reply +6
(11/14/2012) [-]
Thank god, some one who knows his ****
Thank god, some one who knows his ****