Muh Gravity. . III buildings; .. I don't like Dawkins not because I'm a christian (which I am) and not because I believe in the creation story (which I don't) but because he has such a VENDETTA
Click to expand


What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#294 to #252 - anon (06/27/2013) [-]
thats a great graphic organizer.
#6 - anon (06/26/2013) [-]
This is misleading, while there are many theories of gravity, there is in fact "The Law of gravity".

**** you OP
#141 to #6 - anon (06/27/2013) [-]
Consider the fact that science, by definition, is never 100% true? Science is always on probation in light of further evidence.
Consider the musing and readings of philosophy David Hume.
Science is based on induction, due to our inability to test a theory constantly unto the end of time.
However, even Hume admits to science appearing to follow its own rules the vast majority of the time.
#216 to #6 - detoxpain ONLINE (06/27/2013) [-]
There are no LAWS of science due simply to the fact that nothing can be legitimately proven. In one sense there is no way to prove that gravity is a law because you can't be everywhere in time, and space making sure it is a constant. In another sense there is no way to prove that anything around you truly exists due to the fact that the human brain is so complex, and capable, that you could be sitting in a room, in some completely different reality, imagining that all of this is real when it in fact doesn't exist.
#232 to #6 - anon (06/27/2013) [-]
This is what people need to understand about science.

A theory is the PINNACLE of science. It's a set of observed facts that explain the natural world. So our THEORY of gravity might be wrong, but it is the current best explanation of how the world works.

Before something can become a theory it is a hypothesis that needs peer-reviewed, double-blind testing, to ensure that the theory is infact VERY VERY precise.
A theory in science is not just some hunch or guess.

A law in science is for example "The law of gravitational attraction" or what some IDIOTS on here would call "The law of gravity". This is a subset WITHIN the theory of gravity, and all it states is that objects with mass has a natural tendency of attraction.
Just like the LAW of evolution states that lifeforms WILL evolve. What the theory of evolution tries to do is to EXPLAIN this observed fact. But the fact that evolution takes place is NON-NEGOTIABLE.
#368 to #6 - teranin (06/27/2013) [-]
there is a law of gravitation, and a theory of gravity. the law of gravitation is the mathematical equation used to express how two bodies that have mass are attracted to each other. the theory of gravitation covers a number of other laws, and uses them to construct an overall theory as to what is causing those laws to work, in order to allow for predictive experimentation and invention to take place with a functional understanding of the natural phenomena.
User avatar #8 to #6 - scio ONLINE (06/26/2013) [-]
There is one theory of gravity: "The theory of gravity"

What you think is "theory" is actually a "hypothesis".

Theory = Proven (The best we can to our extend as of now, mind you.)
#7 to #6 - anon (06/26/2013) [-]
our names are back to just anonymous.
User avatar #212 to #6 - ninjatacos (06/27/2013) [-]
But...Laws are meant to be broken.
User avatar #10 to #6 - mtandy (06/26/2013) [-]
We have no actual proof of gravity, we just observed the same **** happening again and again and gave it a name. As nothing so far has disproved our understanding of it, we accept it, but we are not yet able to confirm it as fact.
User avatar #264 to #10 - lamarisagoodname (06/27/2013) [-]
We observe a force that exists on all objects in earth's gravitational field, pulling us towards it's center. We don't call it "magic" we call it gravity and it does very well exist
User avatar #366 to #264 - mtandy (06/27/2013) [-]
When we drop something, it falls, we know it will fall, it does not fall up, the equation F=G((m1*m2) / r^2) works, every time. But we still have no proof. Someone asks you to prove that water exists, you turn a tap on, but you can't point to gravity and say "This a a gravity."
User avatar #398 to #366 - lamarisagoodname (06/27/2013) [-]
I still disagree with you, because we can actually observe a force that acts on something when you drop it. We know it exists because we'd float away if it didn't. We don't fully understand HOW it works, if that's what you mean, but I respectfully but strongly disagree with you.
User avatar #402 to #398 - mtandy (06/27/2013) [-]
I'm just trying to tell you why it's still classified as a theory, not truth yet.
#20 to #6 - anon (06/26/2013) [-]
Well, gravity does exist, there's no question about that. The thing is, it might not work the way we think it works. Thus. theory.
User avatar #93 to #6 - srapture (06/27/2013) [-]
The force itself can be observed as law, but it is a theory that the gravitational force due to the interaction of mass is what is causing this force. Therefore, gravity is a theory.
#26 to #6 - anon (06/26/2013) [-]
Law= something recurring we observe
Theory= an explanation to something recurring we observe
#84 to #6 - anon (06/27/2013) [-]
Wrong, the theory is defined by the laws, not vice versa.
#86 to #84 - anon (06/27/2013) [-]
To expand, a theory is the unification of known laws into a single concept. We create the theory of gravity which is evidenced by the laws of gravitation.
#193 to #86 - anon (06/27/2013) [-]
a law is a description of what happens.
a theory is an explanation for why and how something happens.

the laws of gravity describes what happens: objects with mass are attracted to each other.
plate tectonic theory explains why continents are drifting apart.

theories and laws are both based on scientific facts, i.e. observable phenomena. "evolution" is both a fact and a theory. it's a fact in that we can visibly observe species changing over time. this is called evolution. it's a theory in that it's the name for the explanation of why species change over time. unfortunately, they have the same name, which causes quite a bit of confusion.

what you are describing is a "theorem" in mathematics, not a scientific theory.
#253 to #193 - necroshiz **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
#28 - heartlessrobot (06/26/2013) [-]
This image has expired
#120 - anon (06/27/2013) [-]
typical argument coming from this pompous prick
User avatar #293 to #120 - poiklman ONLINE (06/27/2013) [-]
*Intelligent* pompous prick.
User avatar #147 to #120 - IamEllis (06/27/2013) [-]
evolution is real. I'm catholic and I know that
User avatar #25 - Smidgit (06/26/2013) [-]
I don't like Dawkins
not because I'm a christian (which I am) and not because I believe in the creation story (which I don't) but because he has such a VENDETTA against religion
for goodness sake if me believing in God isn't hurting anyone and makes me happy then let me believe in God!
User avatar #159 to #25 - lordmoldywart (06/27/2013) [-]
You're a Christian who doesn't believe in creationism....wut

User avatar #222 to #159 - zorororonoa (06/27/2013) [-]
Creationism isn't the believe that God created us, it is the belief that God created everything starting 6000 years ago, he did it in exactly 7 days, and that he made Adam from dust and Eve from a rib. Pretty much Creationists are the ones who take everything the Bible says literally and believe that dinosaurs are made up lies from scientists because they are not specifically in the Bible. Christians that don't believe in Creationism, like myself, believe that, while God did create everything, he used evolution to do it. I'm smart enough to know that the Bible isn't a literal book.
User avatar #224 to #222 - lordmoldywart (06/27/2013) [-]
Creationism is simply the idea that everything as we know it was created by a divine being, and not via the big bang. That's creationism

The bible speaks of giant beasts in prehistoric times, Christians don't reject dinosaurs, they just don't believe they're as old as we think they are
User avatar #227 to #224 - zorororonoa (06/27/2013) [-]
"as we think they are." Don't lump all Christians in one boat and all atheists in another boat like that. I believe that dinosaurs are as old as everyone else. Also, here is the definition of creationism that I found. "The belief that the universe and living organisms originate from divine creation, as in the biblical account, rather than by processes." So that means that you believe that God created everything exactly how the Bible describes. If you believe that God created everything using a process like evolution, than you are not a Creationist.
User avatar #230 to #227 - lordmoldywart (06/27/2013) [-]
You need to pull that stick out your arse and stop being so defensive, I wasn't lumping anyone from either side into a boat. It was general talk, the 'we' wasn't meant in a hostile manner like how you took it

The Bible doesn't speak in detail of how God apparently created everything, only a timeframe within which he did it. There is a large hole in the Bible leaving out how he created us, and the Bible not once rejects evolution, so it's perfectly reasonable that evolution (and even possibly the big bang) was God's method of creating life. That definition you presented is of no use whatsoever, because the biblical account we have doesn't mention the process God used, so it is perfectly reasonable to suggest he used processes to create

God being God would have had to** create** the laws of physics, chemistry, and biology necessary for evolution to take place, therefore you can believe that evolution happened, and that God created it and subsequently all life
#248 to #159 - anon (06/27/2013) [-]
a little bit late but, havent you consider that the bible isnt that literal? for example, cain and abel, maybe they were tribes, one of hunters, and one of farmers, the story tell us that one kill another... maybe thats a reference to the first war/combat in the bible chronology, Jesus use parables in order to reach all kinds of people, maybe the bible was written with that idea...
User avatar #255 to #248 - lordmoldywart (06/27/2013) [-]
Lots of the bible is metaphorical, I know that
User avatar #351 to #159 - Smidgit (06/27/2013) [-]
my mum's a deacon in the Church of England and she doesn't believe in it either
just because you're a christian doesn't mean that you have to take everything the bible says literally or metaphorically
I believe that the big bang happened and that evolution happened etc
User avatar #359 to #351 - lordmoldywart (06/27/2013) [-]
It's reasonable to be a Christian and believe in the big bang and evolution, but surely you believe it is God that created those events/processes?
User avatar #360 to #359 - Smidgit (06/27/2013) [-]
yes but isn't that the first cause theory?
User avatar #361 to #360 - lordmoldywart (06/27/2013) [-]
Yes it is, and being a Christian, don't you believe in it?
User avatar #362 to #361 - Smidgit (06/27/2013) [-]
yes, but i don't believe in the whole "created the world in 7 days" fandango
User avatar #363 to #362 - lordmoldywart (06/27/2013) [-]
The Bible doesn't specify how long a day means in biblical terms

A day to us is 24 hours, a day to jupiter is 10 hours, day lengths vary
User avatar #364 to #363 - Smidgit (06/27/2013) [-]
It also says that the sun was created on the 4th day after day and night and trees and plants and man was made from the dust of the earth and woman from his rib
#260 to #25 - hailarty (06/27/2013) [-]
As you are one person who believes in god you might not feel the negative impact religion is causing to the society. But once you look to the big picture when there are enough religious people to form churches ect. then religion starts to effect laws and social norms. For example there are still countries where abortion is illegal, stem cell research is still illegal in most places and so forth. The progress of science and society is being slowed down greatly, because there are enough religious people to influence elections. If everyone was more like you -"I am religious I am not hurting anyone, leave me alone" people like Dawkins would not exist, because there would not be a need for men like him. But right now we need more people like him so they could weaken religions negative impact on society.
#32 to #25 - anon (06/26/2013) [-]
>believing in god hasn't hurt anyone


the crusades, the inquisition, arranged marriages (to minors), hating homosexuals, burning witches, condoning slavery, the systematic ******* of children.

and that's just christians...
User avatar #37 to #32 - Smidgit (06/26/2013) [-]
"if ME believing in god isn't hurting anyone"
last I checked I haven't done any of those things.
#42 to #37 - cawpikolo (06/27/2013) [-]
I don't knoooOOOooow noah's ark is about him drowning the entire earth. Jusssst saying but I do respect your beliefs.
User avatar #45 to #42 - Smidgit (06/27/2013) [-]
also thank you for respecting my beliefs!
User avatar #43 to #42 - Smidgit (06/27/2013) [-]
I... What?
haha also just to say, I don't believe everything the bible says, but I do follow its basic moral code
eg creationism, noahs ark and to some extent the virgin birth not so much
but loving thy neighbor (INCLUDING those of all races and sexual orientation*) and the 10 commandments yes.

*does not include rapists murderers pedophiles etc
User avatar #80 to #43 - kingchase (06/27/2013) [-]
The "basic moral code" for Christians is being nice while surviving. Our ancestors have been doing that at least 50,000 before Judaism was created. Your a christian because you were born into it.
User avatar #353 to #80 - Smidgit (06/27/2013) [-]
true, I was born into a religious family but I have always been allowed to make up my own mind about religion.
As long as I'm living by a basic moral code, why should it matter what type of code I call it?
User avatar #54 to #43 - croski (06/27/2013) [-]
What denomination are you?
User avatar #352 to #54 - Smidgit (06/27/2013) [-]
Church of England
#180 to #37 - anon (06/27/2013) [-]
Well, that's precisely why Dawkins doesn't (or shouldn't; I'm unsure of what Dawkins does) hold vendettas against religious individuals, but rather, has a vendetta against religion as a whole. I would guess that he really doesn't care about an individual such a you, believing in god, as most religious individuals are harmless, but that he despises religion for its larger effects throughout society. In any case, he is probably not so much concerned about you harming others with religion (as you don't), but he is likely more concerned about religious exposure to a whole population, which then will likely lead to at least of few incidences of such tragedies. As such, it isn't unreasonable to hold a vendetta against religion in that it is generally useless and not beneficial (at least when accounting for its negative influences), yet causes tragedies in society as a whole. Thus, removal of religion entirely may be seen as a better choice, and personal sentiments are just collateral damage.
#82 to #25 - kingchase has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #96 to #82 - fredthemilkman (06/27/2013) [-]
Not even. The crusades brought back a lot of good things to Europe, such as Algebra and painkillers. Besides, during the 174 years of the Crusades, only 24 involved fighting.

Also, i doubt we were set back at all, let alone 1000 years. Although you were probably just making a point.
#118 to #82 - recio **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
#97 to #25 - anon (06/27/2013) [-]
It's ok to be gay, but not religious. Didn't you know that?
User avatar #41 to #25 - zzforrest (06/27/2013) [-]
Richard Dawkins Quote #1
"Religion is like a virus."
Richard Dawkins Quote #2 ( way later than #1 )
"I meant that religion is like a virus in the way it spreads"

No, Dawkins, you meant that religion is like a virus because you hate it, not because it spreads.
#328 - anon (06/27/2013) [-]
#251 - anon (06/27/2013) [-]
Calling ******** , thats basically a Tim Minchin quote
#158 - anothereposter **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
#211 to #158 - atoma (06/27/2013) [-]
I wouldn't say that, he's just a little "harsh". Considering what religion has done AND does I think it's good that we aren't all being so nice about it..

Also, giving atheism a bad name kind of sounds retarded because atheism is simply NOT being religious... personally I don't really like that word because it gives us a form of title for NOT being something
#221 to #211 - babbylicious (06/27/2013) [-]
Any belief system (or lack thereof) can be given a bad name due to people's behavior, even if it has nothing to do with the faith.

All atheists believe that there is no god (no **** ), but some act like assholes who believe that religion is a curse on man and must be exterminated. Atheists have made large contributions to the advancement of society.

Catholics believe in the Catholic Church, yet pedobears priests are abundant.
Catholics have made large contributions in the fields of social justice throughout the world.

The thing is...there are always assholes who might share the same belief or lack thereof which make the entire system frown upon in some area or another. This is one way on how stereotypes start developing. I am sure you have seen this picture around. This stereotype developed because of angry atheists bashing on religion, much in the same way pedo jokes developed because of priests touching kids.

It is not the belief. Yes not believing in God is a belief in my book. It is the social behavior performed by individuals which taint the group.
User avatar #269 to #221 - lamarisagoodname (06/27/2013) [-]
fun fact! Muslim scientists greatly preceded Darwin with the theory of evolution

check out this thread
User avatar #350 to #269 - atoma (06/27/2013) [-]
Well if this is true I suppose some of them "actually know their **** " as they were saying it. However there are some important scientific discoveries that was done by the Nazi's as well so I suppose science can in some cases be viewed a neutral to belief unless it downright contradicts or supports it(I've mostly heard of contradictions though)
User avatar #250 to #221 - atoma (06/27/2013) [-]
Well it was kind of bound to happen that someone would go strongly against religion when the name of religion gets misused to such a stage that anyone who questions it gets executed...

So if not believing in god is a belief don't you think you can say the same thing about invisible pink unicorns? It's a non-belief, not a belief.
User avatar #271 to #250 - lamarisagoodname (06/27/2013) [-]
Atheism isn't "not caring whether there is a god or not", that's agnosticism. Atheism is the belief that there is no god indefinitely, so that's when someone uses science to disprove things like the splitting of the red sea, Mohammed (pbuh) riding the magical horse into space, etc. The issue with that is that there is little to no evidence to disprove theism, as there is scientific proof of the splitting of the red sea and a scientific back story to the Prophet (pbuh)'s trip
User avatar #301 to #271 - atoma (06/27/2013) [-]
I wouldn't say Atheism is the belief that there is no god, that would imply that atheism is somewhat related to Christianity or any other religion that contains gods and it would also imply that Atheism is a religion.

Buddhist don't believe in an entity but that doesn't make it so that their religion is about there not being any god because.

I didn't say that atheism was about not caring whether there is a god or not, in fact it isn't about anything. The word atheist probably shouldn't exist because as I mentioned earlier it gives us a title for NOT being religious.

Agnosticism is more about wondering what is out there, it doesn't make them religious but they don't deny or claim that there is a god or something like that. They just accept the fact that they don't know so agnostics aren't exactly religious either. However it's still different from atheism because Agnosticism is actually something.

Neil degrasse tyson doesn't like the word "atheist" either.

I don't believe there is scientific proof just because I read it on the Internet though, did you suddenly start to try and turn me into a Christian or something?
User avatar #312 to #301 - lamarisagoodname (06/27/2013) [-]
Side note (completely irrelevant to the argument) I've long learned that those that actually are looking for some answer can find it on their own, and my practice will preach itself, answering questions or referring to other resources should anyone ask. Whether they convert or not is completely irrelevant to me, all that's asked of me is to be a good representation of Islam.
User avatar #320 to #312 - atoma (06/27/2013) [-]
As long as you're one of these good "representations" I don't really care about you being a religious person and I only like arguing anyway. However there are also many bad "representations" as well. I don't doubt that you're aware of them but absolutely ANY group of people whether they are religious or not have good and bad sides to them.

People like Richard Dawkin are often driven to be against religion because there are too many of these VERY bad "representations" . I am not going to go into detail about them though unless we go "that far" with this discussion.
User avatar #327 to #320 - lamarisagoodname (06/27/2013) [-]
Well, terrorism is a real issue but it shouldn't be linked to Islam, there's just a ridiculous amount of misinterpretation about Islam with the media. Nobody really feels the need to do anything about it (except for the great men and women in the UN and wikipedia behind the xenephobia and islamophobia programs) because if you actually go to learn anything about it, muslims are and always have been very rational, fair, open minded and advanced technologically and socially all throughout history (I can go deep into this if you're interested, there's a lot of things that people should note i.e in depth analysis of the proper sharia law, but I digress) We don't need to sit on internet forums and stand at picket lines spreading the good ol' word of Islam, we don't have to prove anything to anyone. People have as much of a legal right to practice Qur'an burnings as we do to read and recite it, and if that's their way, we have no right or practical reason to conflict with them. We just need to practice Islam and integrate with society (which never conflict in our great countries)
User avatar #330 to #327 - atoma (06/27/2013) [-]
"muslims are and always have been very rational, fair, open minded and advanced technologically and socially all throughout history"

I've got more than a few counter-arguments for this.. but I am not so sure if I should go "that far" as I mentioned earlier, however one thing I will say is that you should perhaps consider that you are believing what you want to believe. It is true that some media has exaggerated to an extent where being a muslim is automatically bad though which is not true of course. I have a lot of bad things to say about muslims but it doesn't go for all of them.
User avatar #342 to #330 - lamarisagoodname (06/27/2013) [-]
(cont of previous comment) what you don't realize is that any money the woman gets is entirely hers to spend and she has 0 obligation to spend it on anyone but herself, whereas the man in the family is absolutely not allowed to spend a dime on himself until his woman and his children's needs are met, and any money the woman gets from her parents will etc is NOT to be used in fulfilling these needs unless she decides to do so, in which it is counted as a donation in her "book" (which is read during the day of judgement)

Then there's the seemingly sticky case of polygamy, which if you look at it from a social perspective, it makes sense. You are allowed to have 4 wives maximum as a male and you absolutely must keep everything entirely fair between your wives from time spent with them to money given. Do please note that this is only in place to be there in times of necessity, such as during times of war when many women are left on the street as widows and it is explicitly stated that if you fear you cannot keep things fair (because it's very difficult to do, it's not like having 4 different "flavors" every night like people think it is) stick to one wife.
#347 to #342 - atoma (06/27/2013) [-]
I'll just skip almost all parts that you have mentioned already because among the stuff I knew about it's pretty much true and I have nothing to say that the stuff I didn't know about wasn't. However at first I think I shall mention a bit about a lot of the people.

This video speaks for itself btw:

There are many muslims that come from Islamic countries that immigrate to non-Islamic countries for a better life. However WHY do they find better lives in the non-islamic countries is something that we should consider and the first video explains ONE of the reasons quite well. so it's basically their strict law, which I admit that I don't know much about since I am not exactly an expert.
One thing I do know is that when something is different in the new country from what their religion says is should be they always seem to react the same way. If someone freaking DRAWS a picture of their prophet then their rioting about it is probably gonna last a bit like history have shown merely in this new century. They also always claim to be the victim.
I think it's also worth mentioning that the Boston bombing was done by islam or at least a muslim
I'd imagine people following a religion of divine word and "peace" to be at least a bit more civilized eh? Not to mention the way the violently act against homosexuals and jews

The "good parts" are always there in every single religion and it makes people more able to have an excuse for themselves for having their belief.

Here is a video from a very active atheist that I subscribe too on youtube, he often puts entertainment clips into his videoes to make his points but his points are pretty good. here he is talking about a man facing execution in an Islamic country simply for posting something on twitter
User avatar #388 to #358 - atoma (06/27/2013) [-]
36 seconds may not be much but It is more than enough to prove a single point, Also I think you forgot to mention the video about the guy who faced execution for twitter posts,

Well, but yeah if you want to go about Islam itself instead of the actions of the people... I have already mentioned part about Drawing Muhammad being a sin and I would GUESS that the hate towards homosexuality and jews. Also, the way you explain Apostasy makes it sound like a typical way of justifying to execute someone when they leave the religion.

Just because they leave the religion it doesn't mean that they completely and utterly reject ANYTHING muslim. but the muslim leaders could just call it apostasy and suddenly the guy gets executed. I'd just say that it's a stealthier version of the Christian "if you're not with us, you're against us" .
I honestly don't know of much else to say about the religion itself since I don't know that much about Islam itself.

My arguments have mostly been about the actions of the people and your arguments have been mostly about the islamic law. I suppose we should argue about whether or not Islam is actually true

How do you know that everything in Islamic books wasn't just written by ancient men who just had a great fantasy. Now days these people are called authors because they write nice entertaining books and they just earn money and fame on it rather than power. In the Christian religion some people say that "if god doesn't exist then who wrote the bible" which is like asking "if harry potter doesn't exist then wrote the harry potter books?"
I suppose a similar argument can be made towards the Qur'an and other Islamic books.

Also, how could Allah AKA god be born out of nothing? I don't know how Islam mentions him in the beginning of time and/or his birth so please just clarify that for me before I go on.
#399 to #388 - lamarisagoodname (06/27/2013) [-]
I double checked with a few more people I know and the punishment against apostasy is really controversial, because it doesn't make sense how you're allowed to practice "heretic" paganism in a muslim society under the Sharia law, protected by the state itself against war and not obligated to go to Jihad Al Saif (holy war, should it ever be declared, there's a LOT of rules to be observed before actually becomes Jihad Al Saif) yet if you leave Islam, you face death and many Islamic scholars agree with it's controversy.

As for the twitter posts and the drawing of Muhammad, drawing any man or animal is forbidden (I understand it as attempting to recreate God's art, which we can't ever get considering how complex humans and animals are from a biological standpoint. Muslim art mostly consists of calligraphy and flowers and other decorations, it looks REALLY nice in my opinion, they use a lot of gold in their decorations, pic related) so people get really offended when you draw the Prophet (it shouldn't result in degrading to a bunch of brainless murderers but you and I both know that not everyone likes to think, sometimes.)

You have to understand that in order for a Caliphate to implement the Sharia to the word and letter, they have to do their part which includes the maintenance of the Mosques, roads and the economic as well as the social stability. Saudi Arabia probably has the best social security out of any country I have ever seen (actually talk to Saudi Arabians, don't just read the tabloids. They are very, very happy with the Sharia law and these aren't "brainwashed Jihadis", my neighbour is Saudi Arabian and he is a research biologist at the nearest hospital and he's a very intelligent and patient man) yet they still don't implement the Sharia law fully.

As for why the Qur'an has a divine source I'll explain fully and in detail (I've looked deep, DEEP into this. I'm a man of science as well) but I must go to my high school graduation, give me some time
#419 to #399 - atoma (05/16/2014) [-]
Did you think I ever forgot?   
Long time no see
Did you think I ever forgot?


Long time no see
User avatar #418 to #399 - atoma (06/30/2013) [-]
I think I have given you a lot of time now... how much time did you need exactly?
#401 to #399 - atoma has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #357 to #347 - lamarisagoodname (06/27/2013) [-]
(continuation 1)
What I'm trying to get at is apostasy is the complete and total rejection of everything muslim, essentially, which includes the Sharia law, which is equal to rejecting the laws against murder, payment / collection of interest, adultery, theft. It's not merely saying "I'm not muslim" because Dhimmis (non-muslims living in muslim states) were subject to Jizya and they were allowed to believe whatever they wanted to believe (read the first paragraph of the wiki article) Including (very important to note) pagans and other polytheistic religions, even though Shirk (or association, basically denying that there is only one god) was absolutely forbidden in Islam.

As for the protests against the youtube video Innocence of Muslims and the various insults against Islam, there's not a whole lot I can say. I can go on and on just like many, MANY scholars and muslims about how the Prophet pbuh himself was insulted personally many, many times and how he handled the situation with patience and how he instructed all of us to handle these situations, but none of that applies to you. As far as you see it, a bunch of crazy muslims rioting again, burning down a US embassy (which is an absolutely insane thing to do, and possibly was the single worst thing they could have done. You just don't touch an embassy, it is the single most basic international law that ever and if the US decides to glass the entirety of Libya, I won't be able to raise a single valid protest.) Unfortunately a couple thousand protesters represent the tens of millions of muslims all around the globe according to the western world, and there's nothing we can do about it.
User avatar #356 to #347 - lamarisagoodname (06/27/2013) [-]
Well, there's a number of things that you bring up, first one is the fact that apostasy is punishable by death. This is true, and like the man in the first video he stopped the woman who was hesitant to say it and said it outright. The crime for apostasy is death, but are you going to stop there like Mr. Dawkins did? Should a mere 36 second video be the deciding factor on whether or not a law is incorrect? Islam is very, very complex and it takes many people to come together and form a conclusion, there is an entire university in Saudi Arabia that studies these things, so as with all things we encounter, we have to actually wrap our heads around the whole situation.

First off, these laws are referred to as the Sharia and that's a completely different topic much larger than a simple "what is the ruling for this crime". The Sharia law is very harsh towards certain crimes including theft, adultery, murder, highway robbing and another one I can't quite remember (I'm terribly sorry) these are the cornerstones of a society, however. It's there to protect women, economy and families, 3 things that a lot of countries cannot secure, which leads to poverty, devalue of women and broken homes (how many children are born out of wedlock, or to divorce, or had to experience a divorce?)

HOWEVER if you (the sultan / president / ruler) are to start implementing these laws and punishments, you have to do your part as well. We all know making something illegal won't solve the issue, you need to tackle the issue at it's source, to which I present to you Zakat by using Zakat, nobody will be in the position where they either steal or starve, nobody will be in overwhelming debt and investments can go forth and everyone will have enough money to marry early, avoiding pre-marital sex and securing families early on (5 husbands later, things change man)

continued in next reply
#339 to #330 - lamarisagoodname (06/27/2013) [-]
Please, don't pull any punches with me. If at the end of our discussion I agree that Islam is incorrect and barbaric, I will drop my faith immediately. It's like I said earlier, if you're going to devote your life to a purpose such as a religion it damn well better be 100% perfect and flawless. If I find any flaw in my religion (which I am still actively looking for) of course I'm going to drop it dead.

First off, I'm sure the first argument is terrorism and the whole idea of 72 virgins. Terrorism is a very real issue, it's not like the 3 thousand men and women that died in 9/11 deserved to die just because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time. Now, I can't speak for the shiite sect, I can only speak for the sunni sect (which is the majority by far, picture related) but Jihad (which is essentially any struggle for the glory of god, really non-militaristic in the modern world ) has laws on warfare, such as no killing of women, children or non-combatants or damaging cultivated or residential areas (of which the 9/11 attacks violated almost every one of those rules)
citation: The Muslim Conduct of State by Muhammad Hamidullah (1987)

Another popular argument is the unfair treatment of women. This is something that you will always think about Islam if you don't wrap your head around the entire Sharia law as it pertains to women (I myself was very wierded out by polygamy until I fully understood it) what you see is a Hijab and burka and a woman that is restricted from expressing her beauty. What you don't see is the fact that women are not allowed to wear perfume, whereas men are encouraged to do so, as well as dress nicely and groom oneself properly, because men are the ones that are supposed to impress the woman, not the other way around. Another thing is the fact that a daughter is entitled to half as much as the son. (cont in next reply)
User avatar #341 to #339 - atoma (06/27/2013) [-]
I'll just wait for your next reply before I answer then
User avatar #309 to #301 - lamarisagoodname (06/27/2013) [-]
(I'm muslim actually) and no, I'm not trying to convert anyone, I'm just saying that what I believe has a lot of scientific background that I can defend, and why athiests get such a bad rep, because those who actively try to fight religion like Dawkins shouldn't represent those who don't really care for religion or the fight in general.

If you take a look at this comparison, it'll show you that the level of faith can vary for both, and that they both are actually "something"
#318 to #309 - atoma (06/27/2013) [-]
Looks like we are both right actually, there are many different definitions of atheist as stated in this article depending on opinions and what "atheists" generally accept as definition for it.  
			You need to login to view this link
I guess Atheism/Atheist is one of the most unstable words there are, in fact the only word that I can think of that is harder to define would be the word "life".    
Which brings us to the question: what is the meaning of the word life? It would have been so simple if we could just religiously answer that it is whether or not they have a soul. In that case the problem would be to define a soul.
Looks like we are both right actually, there are many different definitions of atheist as stated in this article depending on opinions and what "atheists" generally accept as definition for it. You need to login to view this link

I guess Atheism/Atheist is one of the most unstable words there are, in fact the only word that I can think of that is harder to define would be the word "life".
Which brings us to the question: what is the meaning of the word life? It would have been so simple if we could just religiously answer that it is whether or not they have a soul. In that case the problem would be to define a soul.
User avatar #321 to #318 - lamarisagoodname (06/27/2013) [-]
If that's the argument, you need to start small. It IS possible, lets look at it from one side. Life would be useless without a purpose, correct? Then what is our purpose?

Actually that's far too broad, what dictates what we do? Do you agree that we have a soul to maintain (consience, karma, morals etc) and that doing (generally accepted) bad deeds hurts us or dis encourages progress in some way?
User avatar #326 to #321 - atoma (06/27/2013) [-]
Life would be useless without purpose and it IS useless and without purpose if you ask me, however my view on that is merely the realistic side of me because I am pretty sure asking for the meaning of life in a "why are we here?" kind of manner is like asking "what's the square root of apple pie". In fact it's a dumb question, people create religions in order to feel like they have a purpose.

So what purposes do we have if we weren't created for a all godly divine purpose? It's simple, we look at our purpose according to someone or even something, According to our genes we are vessels carrying from one to an another, according to your father it could be to be a doctor who achieves great stuff. That was just a "what if" btw cuz I don't know anything about you personally anyway..

I guess it's the purpose that you give yourself that you should count in the most perhaps and living without a purpose is quite simple for me anyway because I care about living with my family and friends and enjoying myself. I care about actually being a good piece of "the chain".

Someone might ask "why care about any of those stuff if they are meaningless?" Well my answer is "why not? we are humans anyway, we DO care about pointless stuff whether you like it or not!"

I don't think that we are alive through some sort of "soul" but I don't doubt that whatever makes us alive could be CALLED a soul if we ever were to discover it. what dictates what we do would be our knowledge, wisdom, instinct, emotions and intelligence which is the answer I provide since it was me you asked.
User avatar #334 to #326 - lamarisagoodname (06/27/2013) [-]
I agree with you 110%, you don't need religion to find a purpose on earth. but has man really been able to create a proper set of "morals"?

Think of it as a law from a completely neutral party, an already established set of rules to end any form of ambiguity because somewhere along the line, ideals such as your's will be long lost and everyone will want to tweak what is morally correct in their favor which infringes on other people's morals, leading to conflict. It's not like man would be able to realize "I'm not the only person here and what I do might affect my friend i.e stealing their food will make them go hungry for a day"

Said law, however, that is to be passed down from a divine entity, the same one (or group, I guess) that created the universe as we know it which must have taken an enormous amount of energy and unimaginable level of intellect must be absolutely 100% perfect and applicable to all eras in time with no room for misinterpretation. So when the Bible scriptures are so vague and confusing with an enormous amount of people misinterpreting them (all the various denominations of Christianity) you know it couldn't have been from a divine source.

(I can use this to explain why I think the Qur'an has a divine source but I don't want to preach, it's your call)
User avatar #338 to #334 - atoma (06/27/2013) [-]
Oh and also, I don't think it exists a "proper" set of morals. I spend a lot of my time alone when I am thinking for myself developing my own. I suppose the most "proper" sets of morals would come out of great reasoning.
User avatar #337 to #334 - atoma (06/27/2013) [-]
You raise a lot of valid questions, but you know what? I guess we can start to discuss religion a bit deeper and go "that far". You have also made me curious as to what makes you believe, my father is a Christian yet a very intelligent person.

It is intriguing what can make such smart people out there believe in such entities, for me the word "spirituality" is just an another word "magic". I am guessing that you grew up as a muslim but it would be surprising yet quite possible that you actually converted at some point. The human mind is so fragile to belief and how they grow up may have a lot of affect on it.
User avatar #344 to #337 - lamarisagoodname (06/27/2013) [-]
While having a religious background can have a lot of influence on your spirituality you don't keep that thought into your later years unless you're entirely convinced by it, and I wasn't 100% religious from start to now. My dad's a heavy athiest and my mom was muslim against her parents choice initially (we're from the middle east, I was born in Syria. My mom's parents started to practice more diligently after going to Hajj) so I didn't really have much of a "push" so to speak to be religious. Very recently, actually, I was talking to my mom about the signs of judgement day and was very frightened when I realized there's a lot of scientific evidence backing up the prophecies, and all the minor signs of "the hour" have all been observed and confirmed so I decided it was high time I took care of myself spiritually.

You'd be surprised, actually. "Smart" people are those out there looking for answers, and we all love our sciences (the scientific part of Islam is what grabs my attention the most, more than the social, historical or philosophical aspects) and the more you learn about the world, the more you realize that you know very, very little. For heaven's sake, we don't know why our retinas are inverted. Our very eyes, the one sense we use the most in our lives (which is in a way, unfortunate) we don't understand, man.

For some people the philosophical aspects are enough, they can be happy with all of the great writings in the scriptures (I personally really like Mark 8:36, "if achieve gain the world, but forfeit your soul, what have you gained?") but being a man of science as you are, what you can observe through science is what makes you decide what is real and what is not, which is why "spiritual" is just simply "magic" to you. It's not like Muslims were so advanced from a medicinal perspective because the Qur'an is a manual on how to perform a surgery, it was simply stated that for every disease or ailment god has created, there also exist a cure
User avatar #349 to #344 - atoma (06/27/2013) [-]
I am not entirely about what I can prove and cannot, I also think about the fact that I shouldn't assume that there is something magical/spiritual going on just because I don't understand it and in some cases I might never understand it. Personally I wouldn't be surprised if there was more big bangs than in just one place. I like to use some logic to imagine how things works as well and my dad is an expert on science.

When I told him about what I imagined to be the reason it's impossible to travel faster than light he told me that I in fact got it right, because I had put together stuff logically to figure it out. Basically I could create good science fiction by thinking logically.

So logically speaking I think of nothing as something which perhaps could contain a form of gravity which could start a chain to cause a big bang. So if an infinite amount of nothing in an infinite amount of space could cause a big bang... why shouldn't it happen more places in that space?

This is a way of thinking that allows me to imagine things that I don't know, I have been wrong several times but I still haven't done some reading on whether or not there are more big bangs in different areas. So basically my answer is no to why I view spirituality as an another word for magic has also been through that logical way of imagining what I don't know.
User avatar #247 to #221 - sebthebrony (06/27/2013) [-]
Catholics beleive there's a god, and that he sent his child down to earth to die for our sins. I go to a catholic school and most of them hate the catholic church, so I don't really think supporting the church immediately implies you're christian
User avatar #262 - metalmind (06/27/2013) [-]
Oh god, the whole comment section is full of Americans that still don't get that evolution is prooven.
Not even the pope questions evolution. He accepts it.
#277 to #262 - gavenjones (06/27/2013) [-]
I'm American and I accept evolution. Really, most other countries see the U.S. as closed minded religious hicks because that's the sensationalized view that media likes to portray for ratings. Same goes for everywhere, people say that people from Canada are polite but I've met some real dicks from there.
User avatar #306 to #277 - gladiuss (06/27/2013) [-]
But were they polite about it?
User avatar #267 to #262 - AlreadyExists (06/27/2013) [-]
I don't doubt evolution but philosophically I'd argue it has yet to 'proven' that the sun will rise tomorrow.
#305 to #262 - anon (06/27/2013) [-]
When was evolution "prooven"? I never heard the announcement or got the memo.

Piss on someones kitchen table and tell them it's leaks in the roof long enough and sooner or later, they'll start bitching about the leaky roof.
#336 to #262 - swagloon has deleted their comment [-]
#157 - drtrousersnake (06/27/2013) [-]
Law of gravity
Theory of evolution
Laws (how) =/= theory (why)
User avatar #169 to #157 - thegrayknights (06/27/2013) [-]
YllekNayr said it perfectly, it is "Both. There is a law of gravity, and a theory of gravity. The law is what happens. The theory is why it happens." So yea.
User avatar #171 to #169 - YllekNayr (06/27/2013) [-]
Heh, there are plenty of other people who said it as well. I was just the most recent.
#172 to #171 - YllekNayr (06/27/2013) [-]
Here's one someone else posted.
#237 - ZebraCocaine (06/27/2013) [-]
I wouldn't mind seeing a member of the Westboro Baptist church jumping out of a building to prove him wrong..   
(gif somewhat related)
I wouldn't mind seeing a member of the Westboro Baptist church jumping out of a building to prove him wrong..
(gif somewhat related)
#261 to #237 - kingarturi (06/27/2013) [-]
where is that from.   
(gif related)
where is that from.
(gif related)
#280 to #261 - andromedika (06/27/2013) [-]
Where is that from?
Where is that from?
User avatar #283 to #280 - kingarturi (06/27/2013) [-]
no clue
User avatar #274 to #261 - ludislavonac (06/27/2013) [-]
I think it's angel beats
User avatar #275 to #274 - kingarturi (06/27/2013) [-]
#156 - mrsadsap **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #200 to #156 - slumberdonkey (06/27/2013) [-]
As much as most of that may be true, my problem is with the church. They forced people like Copernicus, Gallileo, Newton, and Keplar to revoke everything that they found for science. Gallileo was sentenced to house arrest. Do you want to know when the church apologized for Gallileo? 1992. He was arrested in 1633. It took them over 300 years to apologize for silencing one of the most intelligent minds this world has ever seen. They will never make it up to me, no matter who says "Condoms are ok" or "gays can marry".
#213 to #200 - icefall (06/27/2013) [-]
Wrong, if you actually did some research and look at the standings of the Catholic Church in these matters you would be surprise how disturbingly wrong is the whole "Church vs Science" thing.

Copernicus and Galileo were banned by the church, yes. But the reasons for it are partly scientific. Copernicus was prohibited from publishing as he didn't have any evidential proof to support his claims. His claims contradicted the laws of classical physics in that time period (Newton's Laws did not exist yet, thus Astronomy and Classical Physics were two separate fields of study). Even philosopher (physicists) of the time argued that his thought process was not correct, in fact it was the opposite thought process of what we call now the "scientific method"

Galileo didn't present consequential proof either. In fact, Galileo went ahead and published a book without Church consent (and also ridiculing the Pope, which BTW was a close friend) with erronous proof in today's standards (He suggested that the tides were caused by the movement of the Earth around the Sun, when we know it is mostly Moon's gravity). Also, Galileo was allowed to do any kind of research and perform other studies as long it wasn't related to his heliocentric theory.

Newton? WTF? do you even know what are you talking about? Newton was never banned the English Church (which BTW is different to the Catholic Church), and in fact Newton did a lot of scientific study based on the Bible. Any conflict with the Church or anything religious was caused because different views, such as Newton rejecting the Holy Trinity as a thing, but not religion itself. Fun fact: he predicted the end would come in 2060.

Kepler, same thing with Newton. IN FACT, he wasn't criticized by the church, it was other great thinkers of his times such as GALILEO HIMSELF and Rene Descartes.

#225 to #213 - icefall (06/27/2013) [-]

I honestly hate when people bring up "hurr durr church is bad for science durr"

BECAUSE ITS NOT TRUE. In fact! Many of the great thinkers of the dark ages and mordern times were sponsored by the church or were priests themselves! Should I also remind you that entities such as the Catholic Church and the English Church created and still fund many universities around the world?

These are theories that the Catholic Church ACCEPT, contrary to the common belief:
-The Big Bang Theory (proposed by a priest from Belgium)
-Theory of Evolution (YES, they do, look it up, in fact they never rejected it)
Heck, they even teach it as facts in Catholic Schools.

AND, since you brought it up, the reason because they are agaisnt condoms and gay marriage has specific reasons.
- They don't want condoms, because for them, the act of sex is sacred, the act of creating a human being. They don't want more teenage pregnancy, they just don't want to encourage carnal sex.
- They don't encourage marriage because they believe a holy union should be between a man and a woman. They DO NOT disencourage legal marriages that are strictly related to the legal system. They just don't want people coming to their churches demanding for a holy ceremony.
User avatar #390 to #225 - slumberdonkey (06/27/2013) [-]
Alright, i'm just going to stop you right there for being a complete and utter retard. I'm sure that you think just because you wrote two whole comments full of stuff that you are an expert on the situation but the truth is that you just aren't. Gallileo was one of the first few people to have a TELESCOPE. Any "classical physics" that you speak of doesn't exist. It was all philosophical at that point. I find it very hard to believe that anyone without a telescope had any more idea about the movement of heavenly bodies than did an insect.
Quote from the church's indictment of Gallileo:
"The doctrine that the earth is neither the center of the universe nor immovable, but moves even with a daily rotation, is absurd and both psychologically and theologically false, and at the least an error of faith."
They didn't give a **** about Gallileo. They were not Scientifically driven people. All they knew was that this guy was preaching stuff that their Holy Scripture was opposed to.
To go on with this, Pope Pius IX wrote about Gallileo's situation:
"Divine revelation is perfect and, therefore, it is not subject to continual and indefinite progress in order to correspond with the progress of human reason."
Honestly, this quote alone is why I hate the church. Because there are, were, and still will be people this stupid in charge of things.

In any case, i did not mean to say that all of the scientists were as directly affected by the church as Gallileo was. For instance, the only way that Keplar was affected was that he questioned everything he did because his thoughts all contradicted the bible. He spent a lot of time with the church and not a lot of time doing scientific research. I personally think that such a brilliant man would have done much better work scientifically than theologically.
#233 to #156 - lujan (06/27/2013) [-]
Neil deGrasse Tyson: Atheist or Agnostic?
#175 to #156 - critz (06/27/2013) [-]
This video deserves all the thumbs
#234 - anon (06/27/2013) [-]
This is what people need to understand about science.

A theory is the PINNACLE of science. It's a set of observed facts that explain the natural world. So our THEORY of gravity might be wrong, but it is the current best explanation of how the world works.

Before something can become a theory it is a hypothesis that needs peer-reviewed, double-blind testing, to ensure that the theory is infact VERY VERY precise.
A theory in science is not just some hunch or guess.

A law in science is for example "The law of gravitational attraction" or what some IDIOTS on here would call "The law of gravity". This is a subset WITHIN the theory of gravity, and all it states is that objects with mass has a natural tendency of attraction.
Just like the LAW of evolution states that lifeforms WILL evolve. What the theory of evolution tries to do is to EXPLAIN this observed fact. But the fact that evolution takes place is NON-NEGOTIABLE.
#346 - anon (06/27/2013) [-]
Stupid stupid idiots, the words FACT and THEORY have been altered in the last few decades to mean things other than they were meant to mean for the sole purpose of muddying the dialog. Gravity incontrovertibly exists and has an incontrovertible consistent effect, those are self evident FACTS. Just because some people do not know how something works that does not make it less a FACT. THEORY is meant to mean hypothesis, and the ridiculous hypothesis of macro evolution has been overkilled by the FACTS repeatedly but the media and public fool system still pushes it for the sake of the same agenda that was responsible for its invention in the first place.

Of course young people raised on sin and hedonism dont want any hard 'rules' or accountability, of course they oppose having to meet higher standards and quit doing evil things that bring shallow dirty pleasures, of course they will pick the easy road to agree with the mainline indoctrination, of course they oppose Christianity.
#308 - herecomesjohnny (06/27/2013) [-]
Weren't you there in 2001?
#226 - icefall (06/27/2013) [-]
FUN FACT: The Catholic Church as well as most of the biggest Christian Churches accept the theory of evolution as a fact. It is some few aislated churches that reject this (most of them from the US, crazy redneck people like the WBC).

If the catholic church was agaisnt evolution why would they teach it as fact in their schools and universities around the world?
#176 - Valak Dhur (06/27/2013) [-]
Comment Picture
User avatar #214 to #176 - atoma (06/27/2013) [-]
I still haven't found that video although I've looked through A TON of his videoes...
#167 - anon (06/27/2013) [-]
>Thinks youll fall when you jump out of a window
>yfw when gravitards actually beleive this
#186 to #167 - anon (06/27/2013) [-]
Einstein would argue that you don't get pulled by gravity. instead, space-time pushes you towards the larger mass, i.e. the Earth
#40 - termz (06/27/2013) [-]
Evolution was proven in bacteria or some ****
#206 to #40 - icefall (06/27/2013) [-]
To the extent I know, Evolution as a concept of "specias change" is a proven fact, the question is how it actually happens. There are different theories of evolution, natural selection is just one of the many methods that are thought to have a contribution in evolution. There are theories that speculate that evolution happens over a long period of time, other suggest that it is rapid changes, etc
User avatar #257 to #40 - metalmind (06/27/2013) [-]
Evolution is prooven in everything. It's a fact.
User avatar #47 to #40 - largeheadphones (06/27/2013) [-]
Whether or not it's proven, very few religious groups will accept that fact.
User avatar #60 to #47 - kingchase (06/27/2013) [-]
Not accepting fact pisses me off. ******* people.
User avatar #61 to #60 - largeheadphones (06/27/2013) [-]
I'm sorry, can you clarify, really tired today, a little slow.
User avatar #63 to #61 - kingchase (06/27/2013) [-]
If something is proven, it is fact. Facts are absolute. It is extremely foolish to deny fact. You are correct in your statement btw.
User avatar #70 to #63 - sanguinesolitude (06/27/2013) [-]
thats a very unscientific view. There are no absolute facts, just very well supported theories. You should always question everything and accept only that which is logical and well supported, otherwise you are just being religiously atheist, which is as empty and ignorant a position as a religious fanatic.
User avatar #74 to #70 - kingchase (06/27/2013) [-]
That's actually a very good point, and I've tried to do that before. You have made me realize that I've strayed from my path of scientific paranoia, thank you.
User avatar #78 to #74 - sanguinesolitude (06/27/2013) [-]
no problem. I find Atheism an arrogant position when taken hardline. I consider myself an agnostic atheist, in that i do not believe in a god, but i am open to the possibility that i could be wrong. Do i think i am wrong? no. But there is no proof that God doesnt exist, and we dont even know what God might possibly be. So you gotta leave the door open in case jesus appears and is like... "BOOM son of god ************ ... you ready for hell faggot"
User avatar #64 to #63 - largeheadphones (06/27/2013) [-]
OK, thank you, I to hate it when people deny facts.
#83 to #47 - anon (06/27/2013) [-]
Many do, you just dont know any for yourself so you jump to conclusions you retarded faggot.
User avatar #145 to #40 - newforomador (06/27/2013) [-]
Evolution has been proven, but the big argument is whether or not homo sapiens evolved from primates.
#182 to #145 - anon (06/27/2013) [-]
not a single intelligent person has ever said that we evolved from primates. all of the great apes (including homo sapiens) came from a COMMON ANCESTOR. that means a long time ago, there was a certain species of animal that diverged into separate branches of species, and we evolved alongside the rest of the apes.

User avatar #187 to #182 - newforomador (06/27/2013) [-]
Whichever, people understand what I meant. Either way, I actually had never heard that before and thought the theory was that we evolved from primates. Well, you learn something new everyday.
User avatar #154 - vatra (06/27/2013) [-]
Law. Gravity is a law.
User avatar #160 to #154 - YllekNayr (06/27/2013) [-]
Both. There is a law of gravity, and a theory of gravity. The law is what happens. The theory is why it happens.
User avatar #162 to #160 - vatra (06/27/2013) [-]
Huh, well then. Just looked that up, and you're right.
User avatar #163 to #162 - YllekNayr (06/27/2013) [-]
I didn't know that til this year. It's all good.
User avatar #164 to #163 - vatra (06/27/2013) [-]
I see, I wonder why it is less known.
User avatar #166 to #164 - YllekNayr (06/27/2013) [-]
People typically think that you can only have one or the other. It makes sense to think that.
User avatar #168 to #166 - vatra (06/27/2013) [-]
User avatar #170 to #168 - YllekNayr (06/27/2013) [-]
Hey, idunno who's thumbing you down, but I set it back to 0.
User avatar #173 to #170 - vatra (06/27/2013) [-]
Yeah, you got thumbed down too, so it was probably some unhappy person scrolling down the comments.
#235 to #173 - lujan (06/27/2013) [-]
Lol at some unhappy person. I thumbed both you guys up.
Leave a comment
 Friends (0)