Atheism vs Theism. bold move, let's see if it pays off.. ATHEISM vs THEISM Is Is A Simple guide to know what the hell you are.' iktf? , AITHEIST ! llooll I DENT whom are You

Atheism vs Theism

Atheism vs Theism. bold move, let's see if it pays off.. ATHEISM vs THEISM Is Is A Simple guide to know what the hell you are.' iktf? , AITHEIST ! llooll I DENT

bold move, let's see if it pays off.

Tags: whom | are | You
A Simple guide to know what the hell you are.'
iktf? , AITHEIST ! llooll
THERE Is A aunt THERE IE A clout
SURE. IT Eon Ex: -atman
mars if you mm is theri/ iid, that is hell tr mime but thm' t .. up. {Am Eras. -?
  • Recommend tagsx
Views: 65237
Favorited: 219
Submitted: 09/26/2013
Share On Facebook
submit to reddit +Favorite Subscribe to sithunter


Anonymous comments allowed.
#135 - DiabloStrawhat (09/26/2013) [-]
If God is real, then why will the sun rise in a few hours?

Christians: 0
Atheists: 0
People who settle their disputes with a children's' card game: 1
#207 to #135 - vortix (09/27/2013) [-]
if god doesn't exist then why do yellow squiggly lines burn?

Christians: 0
Atheists: 0
People who settle their disputes with a children's' card game: 2
#610 to #207 - anon (09/27/2013) [-]
I read both comments in the abridged voices.

It was glorious.
#429 to #135 - Kairyuka (09/27/2013) [-]
I love you for that reference.
#328 to #3 - mrawesomeman (09/27/2013) [-]
The agnostics are just like "What is the deal with airline food?"

Here, Jesus says "DEAL WITH IT"
#588 to #328 - brenton (09/27/2013) [-]
I literally do not have a single clue what you are talking about.
#48 - zyketor (09/26/2013) [-]
I'm Agnostic. Plain Agnostic.   
I don't know, I don't think anyone still living on Earth can know. That is all I believe in regards to religion.
I'm Agnostic. Plain Agnostic.

I don't know, I don't think anyone still living on Earth can know. That is all I believe in regards to religion.
User avatar #65 to #48 - edemylove **User deleted account** (09/26/2013) [-]
Actually, agnostics are people who believe in that something exist, but human brain is too simple to understand it.
User avatar #71 to #65 - edemylove **User deleted account** (09/26/2013) [-]
Sorry, my poor English skills backfired. What I meant to say is that in our wake, human brain will not know whetr there is a deity or not.
User avatar #76 to #71 - edemylove **User deleted account** (09/26/2013) [-]
**** , not that, I am a little drunk and not a native english speaker so please forgive me , agnostic is a person who is neutral in any form of devotion, there are strong and weak agnostics, strong agnostics are all like "I cannot say that if there's a deity or not, but neither can you" and weak agnsotics are all like " I cannot say that if there's a deity or not, but maybe one day we will find out"
User avatar #79 to #76 - edemylove **User deleted account** (09/26/2013) [-]
**** AGNOSTICS, I am sweating now beacuase I don't know how to explain them.
#113 to #79 - zyketor (09/26/2013) [-]
Which is all the more stupid because you essentially just said exactly what I already said in 3 different ways.
User avatar #564 to #113 - edemylove **User deleted account** (09/27/2013) [-]
Yeah, I was kind of drunk. Enjoy yourself sir.
User avatar #229 to #76 - pokemonstheshiz (09/27/2013) [-]
dude, read the post. Gnostic and agnostic are descriptions of belief, not beliefs themselves. A gnostic person is sure of their belief, while an agnostic person is unsure.

Take an intro to religion class dude
#128 to #76 - anon (09/26/2013) [-]
what if you have views on both strong and weak agnostics. like the whole "I cannot say that if there's a deity or not, but neither can you, but one day we may find out"
User avatar #165 to #48 - YllekNayr (09/27/2013) [-]
That's agnostic atheism. If you don't have a positive belief in a god, you lack a belief in a god. That's atheism. Atheism isn't believing there isn't a god. It's just not actively believing in a god.
User avatar #444 to #48 - nitsuan (09/27/2013) [-]
I would have to say I am agnostic theist. Some of it may come from me wanting to believe in some form of higher power to light up this dull existence, but I also feel like if there is a divine force in the universe it is beyond our comprehension and science can not simply just prove it wrong or right. I am also open to the idea that there may be nothing in the end and we are all really just a miracle of life. Regardless, I think they only way we will ever truly know is once we die. If you die and wake up in some after life, there you go! If you die and umm...well...nothing happens....that too answers the question, but sadly you will never be able to acknowledge or spread the answer.
User avatar #385 to #48 - rainbowtacos (09/27/2013) [-]
My thought is "Do what ever the **** you want, believe in what ever the **** you want. Just don't hurt or abuse other people and I don't give a **** ."
#21 - skysailor (09/26/2013) [-]
I believe in God. It makes sense to me. I figure there may be plenty of different possibilities for God's form. If you don't believe in God, I don't mind as long as you're not a cunt about it.
User avatar #83 to #21 - tredbear (09/26/2013) [-]
pics, or it never happened.
User avatar #157 to #21 - atoma ONLINE (09/27/2013) [-]
I'm and Atheist that is pretty darn sure there is no such thing as a god.

I like arguing about it, I don't count arguing in as being a cunt.
#187 to #157 - bigrog (09/27/2013) [-]
I really doubt you like to argue about it as much as you like to have a medium to rant about your beliefs and maybe rack up another "win" in your internet argument victory column. An argument implies that you actually care what the other person has to say and are actually affected by what they have to say. Very few people actually give a **** about what a random stranger on the internet has to say. Though I could be wrong about all this. Though I doubt it.

You need to login to view this link
(Refer to number 3 on list)

User avatar #231 to #187 - mylazy (09/27/2013) [-]
Great advice on there.
#235 to #231 - bigrog (09/27/2013) [-]
Definitely. Probably the best article I've ever read. Really Changed the way I think. It's the reason I've done by best to retire from internet arguments.
User avatar #713 to #187 - lamarisagoodname (10/01/2013) [-]
I don't think we should damn ourselves because of what we should expect
#714 to #713 - bigrog (10/01/2013) [-]
what do mean?
User avatar #715 to #714 - lamarisagoodname (10/01/2013) [-]
You're saying that few people actually give a **** about what a random stranger has to say on the internet. It's what you would expect and the only reason you extend that to yourself or whomever you're speaking to is because it's what you've observed so far. Kinda unfair to damn all of your possible arguments because of what you expect
#716 to #715 - bigrog (10/01/2013) [-]
No, there are a few who are interested and what to advance and learn I am aware of this. But they are few, and not worth the majority who just want to rant, let off steam, or use the site and there own personal medium for there anger. And even worse than them are those who do it to get some sort of imaginary win. Those who will do everything in there power to get in the last comment because in there minds even if it just because the other person is tired of there **** they will still count it as a win. Those who will spend weeks just repeating themselves and despite being openly ignorant about the subject will continue to argue just to stroke there ego. I spent over a weak and a half arguing with a bastard named teranin over religion. He openly admitted to not have even read the whole bible and was essentially ignorant (pretty sure he is the one I am thinking of, been in a few of these with different people) and no matter how many times we kept repeating ourselves or I kept trying to end it he did everything in his power to keep it going and me being a total dumbass kept falling for it. By the end funnyjunk wasn't even letting me reply any more, i was pissed off, and wasted hours of my life which i will never get back. I have been in a **** load of argument just like that . He didn't give a **** about what i had to say, he just wanted another chance to intellectually defeat another dumb christian. And by the end of it I was so pissed i didn't give a **** about what he had to say either. Its not worth the time and the effort. I can count the civil open minded debates I've had on the internet on one hand. I've accepted that no one cares about the opinions of strangers, or at least most don't. What people really want is either a free therapist to listen to there problems and grievances or another way to stroke there ego. I was just sick and tired to feeding that machine.

BTW sorry about the really damn overly long post. I like to write and can get carried away
User avatar #720 to #716 - lamarisagoodname (10/01/2013) [-]
And I like to listen to said folks that write and get carried away. It's tough to avoid being cynical in today's world but it's not as bad as you'd expect. Also, the best thing about religion / science is that if you're correct then you're correct, proving it to someone else doesn't make it any more or less right. Don't waste your time trying to debate with those with their heads so far up their asses they can only hear themselves (I'm muslim, so I can relate to what you mean)
#717 to #716 - teranin (10/01/2013) [-]
few issues with that, bignog. I have read the whole bible, and would not admit to a lie. The argument ended with you asserting a 4,000 year time difference as "around the same time" in a biblical sense, proving you're a ******* idiot who had no idea what the **** they were talking about. We were done, because you did the exact same thing you just complained about others doing.

Next time you decide to include me in a long winded rant, try to at least be honest about what the **** you are saying.
#718 to #717 - bigrog (10/01/2013) [-]
Never said difinitevly it was you, said it might have been someone else, i have been in a few arguments with jackasses and one did openly admit to being ignorant. And thank you for proving my point by missing the entire point of the post and throwing out a bunch of juvenile insults. And i was accurate about why it ended. Because by the end all we were doing was repeating ourselves and had reached and impasse. Neither of us were going anywhere. And if you had actually read my post you would noticed I admitted to being just as bad at the time. And as far as I am concerned besides that one mistake which i openly said i might have the wrong person every single thing i said was right. You didn't give a **** about what i or anybody had to say. You are just a bitter asshole looking to put another one in your imaginary win column to stroke your own ego. I use to be just as bad but at least I've bettered myself.
User avatar #719 to #718 - teranin (10/01/2013) [-]
fair enough, sorry about my reaction, felt like you were talking **** .
#721 to #719 - bigrog (10/02/2013) [-]
yeah, funny what you find out when you actually read. Stops you from coming off like an asshole.
User avatar #499 to #187 - atoma ONLINE (09/27/2013) [-]
Stereotypes can be used to make it easier to make guesses but I think you judged a bit to quickly.
You're not going to call this a proper argument?
I learned a lot about muslims during that argument with lamarisagoodname.He was fun to argue with since he was pretty intelligent. Due to it being funnyjunk it's a bit unorganized so it might become a bit difficult to read in the right order since we basically had "two conversations" with each other.
User avatar #285 to #157 - thinegame (09/27/2013) [-]
What defines a god for you?
User avatar #505 to #285 - atoma ONLINE (09/27/2013) [-]
So far religion has brought out two different types of gods, those who use magic to be pretty darn powerful(Zeus, Thor, etc) and those who are downright almighty and using magic too(The Christian god). So within my definition a god would be impossible. There could perhaps be god-like creatures out there for all we know. I highly doubt they would be as powerful or anything like Q from Star Trek though.
#338 to #157 - rhinocerous **User deleted account** (09/27/2013) [-]
Comment Picture
User avatar #98 to #21 - ompalomper ONLINE (09/26/2013) [-]
i like you.

personally i don't really know. i don't believe there is a god that can affect us in any way because that doesn't make sense to me. what i know is that with death we cease to exist but what i hope is that there is something equivalent to a soul that will either live on or get reincarnated somewhere within the Universe including the multi-verse. i mean, im hoping here, why not hope that i might go to the pokémon universe when i die?.

TL;DR i live like i morally feel like i should and while i don't think there is a god i hope that there is something after death
User avatar #164 to #98 - atoma ONLINE (09/27/2013) [-]
>something equivalent to a soul

If we ever were to find out what it is that makes us alive we could easily call it a soul.
#241 to #21 - anon (09/27/2013) [-]
I don't believe in any sort of god and I know for sure it is wrong. I am not saying that it is wrong to believe in something you think is true however
User avatar #409 to #21 - patrickthenazarene (09/27/2013) [-]
i am a deist
User avatar #412 to #21 - tonkkax (09/27/2013) [-]
A god related to religion or just some random god?
#517 to #21 - gerggerg (09/27/2013) [-]
there is so many ways I can be an asshole
User avatar #533 to #517 - dragontamers (09/27/2013) [-]
*There are so many ways
#534 to #533 - gerggerg (09/27/2013) [-]
"There is so many-" works too...
#599 to #21 - kez (09/27/2013) [-]
It doesnt make any sense and I think most people are religious just because of the afterlife thing.

But that said I dont really care at all so have a nice life.
User avatar #179 to #21 - createdjustnow ONLINE (09/27/2013) [-]
had a long conversation with someone on my school bus, both of us being the honors students. we both argued our perspectives on creationism, and in the end we had 12 different ideas, and we weren't sure whether or not we were arguing religion...

one of these theories was that since cave drawings were found that looked like astronauts, i explained that it's a possibility that future generations produce an engine that moves faster than light, making time travel a possibility. and went on to say that a crash could wipe the technology and leave them stranded on pre-dated earth with barely any useful tools. and thus leaving their descendants to repopulate the planet and they develop technology and repeat the cycle.

fun day
#301 to #21 - thesinful (09/27/2013) [-]
I don't believe in God but believe you can believe whatever you want. Though if it's something I find particularly silly, I'll probably laugh at it a bit.

I also have a troublesome tendency to get angry when people attribute mine, theirs, or someone else's accomplishments to God. It just makes me feel like they're marginalizing the work you put into it. "God helped you get that job." No, I applied to literally every job I could find for roughly 3 months. I asked friends and family if they knew about job openings. That's how I got that job.

TLR I believe that thanking God for everything that goes right in your life undermines your own efforts.
User avatar #348 to #301 - skysailor (09/27/2013) [-]
I definitely believe this too. I think it was either Bruce Almighty or Evan Almighty in which Morgan Freeman played God and said that when a man prays for courage, he doesn't simply give him courage, but gives him the opportunity to be courageous.
#58 to #21 - redthumbmaster (09/26/2013) [-]
I don't believe in God. It doesn't make sense to me. I figure there are many other possibilities other than God. If you believe in God, I don't mind, even if you are a cunt about it. Even though I don't believe in what you say I will fight to death for your right to say it.
User avatar #297 to #58 - VLG (09/27/2013) [-]
#308 to #297 - rustiphor (09/27/2013) [-]
You are correct sir!
You are correct sir!
User avatar #120 to #58 - comedytrash (09/26/2013) [-]
That's fedorable. why can't atheists shut up about it. you don't believe in god. get over yourself.
User avatar #160 to #120 - redthumbmaster (09/27/2013) [-]
So skysailor gets his say, but I shouldn't? If he gets to express his thoughts then so do I.
#621 to #160 - comedytrash (09/27/2013) [-]
its because you have a hole channel dedicated to it get a grip. we dont want to hear it. if you were half descend you wouldnt say anything. pic related
User avatar #590 to #120 - fizzor (09/27/2013) [-]
And what you said was just plain retarded. Everyone, believers and non-believers alike, have the right to express their opinions. They just should do it in a civilized manner. So sit the **** down and shut the **** up before you embarrass yourself any more.
#509 to #21 - edwardyeap (09/27/2013) [-]
God might be Trevor for all you know.
God might be Trevor for all you know.
User avatar #22 to #21 - spikethepony (09/26/2013) [-]
Is that....
Holy **** , you're not being an asshole online! INTERNET POLICE! INTERNET POLICE! THIS MAN ISN'T SHOVING HIS BELIEFS (or lack thereof) DOWN MY THROAT!!
#60 to #22 - skysailor (09/26/2013) [-]
Apologies, I forgot that this was the internet. Allow me to reiterate my statement with the current context in mind.    
Apologies, I forgot that this was the internet. Allow me to reiterate my statement with the current context in mind.

#49 to #22 - reaperriley ONLINE (09/26/2013) [-]
Well.... we can shove other things down your throat.
Well.... we can shove other things down your throat.
#70 to #49 - ninjabaconone (09/26/2013) [-]
User avatar #99 to #70 - freakstorm (09/26/2013) [-]
bro i think shes the chick from teens react...
User avatar #89 to #70 - ompalomper ONLINE (09/26/2013) [-]
sorry but i don't think she stars in any porn
User avatar #94 to #70 - studsper (09/26/2013) [-]
She's like 15
User avatar #194 to #94 - ggggotmethisname (09/27/2013) [-]
your point?
User avatar #268 to #94 - hydraetis (09/27/2013) [-]
16 by now.
#383 to #268 - guythatagrees (09/27/2013) [-]
What's that? she's Eighteen? Oh great good.
User avatar #608 to #70 - hit **User deleted account** (09/27/2013) [-]
Lia marie johnson
#396 to #49 - johnnygoldmane **User deleted account** (09/27/2013) [-]
W-why would you torture us with a gif like that when she's only 16?  I'm not even mad, I just love this reaction gif
W-why would you torture us with a gif like that when she's only 16? I'm not even mad, I just love this reaction gif
User avatar #636 to #396 - reaperriley ONLINE (09/27/2013) [-]
Legal for me.
#127 - alphagex (09/26/2013) [-]
Hey atheist is god isn't real then how come he got a wikipedia page?
Checkmate atheist

User avatar #45 - mutzaki (09/26/2013) [-]
Posts like this make gnostic atheists look like dicks.
#91 to #45 - nehger **User deleted account** (09/26/2013) [-]
on the internet they mostly are
#273 to #45 - thinkwithportals (09/27/2013) [-]
Right? just look at him. look at that 			*******		 sweater. and that beard. and those glasses. you don't even need the dialog to know he's probably an asshole
Right? just look at him. look at that ******* sweater. and that beard. and those glasses. you don't even need the dialog to know he's probably an asshole
#579 to #45 - dwooodbear (09/27/2013) [-]
Did you see it too?
sorry for my fantastic paint skills
#388 to #45 - cockandballz (09/27/2013) [-]
Thats cuz they are
User avatar #572 to #45 - frenchtoastftw (09/27/2013) [-]
Found the gnostic atheist.
User avatar #613 to #572 - mutzaki (09/27/2013) [-]
Well yeah, you did.
User avatar #573 to #45 - anonymoose (09/27/2013) [-]
Because gnostic atheists are dicks.
User avatar #86 to #45 - ningyoaijin (09/26/2013) [-]
They... They are. The existence of God is, due to the nature of what God is, impossible to either prove or disprove. So if you think you know one way or the other, you're an arrogant dick.
User avatar #143 to #86 - nervaaurelius (09/27/2013) [-]
I see this argument a lot but the things is though is that there are many things that you can't be 100 percent sure of that you decide to come to a conclusion for anyway. Just because you are not completely sure of something does not mean you cannot come to a conclusion. If that was so then there would be tons of things in your day to day life that you wouldn't be able to come to a conclusion on.
User avatar #236 to #143 - mylazy (09/27/2013) [-]
I think the point they are making is that by not being 100% sure you are not arrogant. As soon as you become 100% sure you are either dead or arrogant.
User avatar #237 to #236 - nervaaurelius (09/27/2013) [-]
Well is there really people who say they are 100 percent sure? I mean I don't believe that's how "gnostic atheists" go about.
User avatar #240 to #237 - mylazy (09/27/2013) [-]
At any point where you claim you know something, you are claiming to be 100% sure. You may not mean to claim it, but the fact is that you cannot know something if there is even a single sliver of doubt. So unless there is no doubt you cannot rightly claim to know something.
#189 to #143 - cockineveryorifice (09/27/2013) [-]
I think what people are trying to say that coming to a conclusion is not the same as knowing. Therefore the term gnostic shouldn't really be applied in matters of faith or opinion, such as religion.
User avatar #130 to #86 - quantumlegend (09/26/2013) [-]
This, very much this.
If there is no proof of something being one way or the other, then by claiming either as absolute truth is simply wrong.
Sure, you can believe there is or is not a god, but refusing to consider the possibility of the alternative is simply being arrogant.
User avatar #306 to #45 - OMGNIGGERZ (09/27/2013) [-]
Gnostic atheists make gnostic atheists look like dicks
User avatar #122 to #45 - akkere (09/26/2013) [-]
Quite a few of them are. Look at r/atheism.
Just like how quite a few of gnostic theists are dicks.
#463 to #122 - whargarbler (09/27/2013) [-]
14 year old kids trying to look cool by being edgy is not the atheist community. That's just r/atheism.

14 year old kids trying to look cool by being edgy is not the atheist community. That's just r/atheism.
User avatar #469 to #463 - akkere (09/27/2013) [-]
r/atheism also consists of the stereotypical neckbeard-fedora types and even some turtle-neck hipster atheists like the one emulated in this comic.

And it's not just r/atheism - FJ went through a phase of religious **** storming where people like the one I described came out to post nothing but " **** Religion and anyone who has one".
#131 to #45 - dwarfman (09/26/2013) [-]
Because they are.
Because they are.
#214 to #45 - anon (09/27/2013) [-]
User avatar #163 to #45 - YllekNayr (09/27/2013) [-]
Same applies to gnostic theists.
User avatar #245 to #45 - rmdx (09/27/2013) [-]
well most of them are

but i might be wrong
User avatar #151 to #45 - noopinion (09/27/2013) [-]
They are dicks.
#50 to #45 - graytimber (09/26/2013) [-]
Seeing how the artist depicted the people in the picture, I'm pretty sure a point was, unintentionally or intentionally, to show that gnostic atheists and theists are closed-minded.

I'm not offended, as a gnostic atheist, that they did that. Some are actually that bad, but I'm pretty sure most of us just don't believe in god and leave it like that.
User avatar #62 to #50 - lordmoldywart (09/26/2013) [-]
But you're claiming to know something that can't be proven/unproven, which makes you arrogant
#69 to #62 - graytimber (09/26/2013) [-]
I'm actually not claiming anything. I don't go out into crowds of religious people and shout "Your god doesn't exist!"

I just don't believe in whichever god. Under the requirements for arrogant put on me, technically, everyone is arrogant.
User avatar #78 to #69 - lordmoldywart (09/26/2013) [-]
No, my point is you claim to be a gnostic atheist, meaning you KNOW that no God exists, which is impossible as the existence of any God has neither been proven nor unproven. That is what makes you arrogant. I never suggested that you had to go into a crowd of people and express your beliefs publically to be arrogant, not at all.
#80 to #78 - graytimber (09/26/2013) [-]
I understand that, and the second part still applies.
User avatar #81 to #80 - lordmoldywart (09/26/2013) [-]
No, the second part doesn't apply at all, the requirements for arrogant to be put on you only apply to people that claim to KNOW something that is IMPOSSIBLE to be KNOWN. Only gnostic theists and gnostic atheists, so no, not everyone is arrogant.
User avatar #456 to #81 - wickedfreckles (09/27/2013) [-]
1. having or revealing an exaggerated sense of ones own importance or abilities.
i.e. That guy on FJ who tries to call everyone arrogant is an arrogant cunt.
User avatar #535 to #456 - lordmoldywart (09/27/2013) [-]
I'm not the one claiming to know something that can't be known, his beliefs fit the definition perfectly as he has an exaggerated sense of his own abilities (claiming to know something that can't be known).

That backfired on you a bit, didn't it
User avatar #330 to #81 - mrbuu (09/27/2013) [-]
he isn't arrogant stop being a silly cunt muffin.
User avatar #538 to #330 - lordmoldywart (09/27/2013) [-]
Just read wickedfreckles' comment, #466, graytimber's actions fit the definition perfectly. Having an exaggerated sense of his own abilities, by claiming to know something that can't be known, he is being arrogant.
User avatar #584 to #538 - babyanalraper (09/27/2013) [-]
Maybe he reasons in ways like: Lack of proof of God means, until evidence suggests otherwise, no God. Lack of proof of ninja standing behind me means, until evidence suggests otherwise, no ninja behind me. There is a possibility, but a very very small one, and thus he claims to know that no god exist. Or maybe he just knows that religion is fake/wrong, and that is actually proveable and true.
User avatar #589 to #584 - lordmoldywart (09/27/2013) [-]
Religion has nothing to do with it really, we're just talking about a deity, but no named deity in particular. There could be a deity that no one in history has ever heard of. No one knows...
User avatar #623 to #589 - babyanalraper (09/27/2013) [-]
I'm just have theories. However, while at the topic of improvable deities... If there is a deity that there is no evidence of, then there is practically no deity. If you can't prove the deity it can't affect us in any way, and therefore, albeit possible theoretically, it doesn't practically exist.
User avatar #634 to #623 - lordmoldywart (09/27/2013) [-]
Just because we can't prove a deity exists, that doesn't mean there we should just assume there isn't one. Back before microscopes were invented, we couldn't prove that our body was made up of billions and billions of cells, we couldn't prove that every observable thing in the universe was made up of atoms... Who knows, maybe in future we'll invent something that helps us prove/disprove the existence of a deity.

I don't like to use the "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" phrase, but it does apply to deities
User avatar #635 to #634 - babyanalraper (09/27/2013) [-]
But weren't we speaking of the improvable deity?
User avatar #639 to #635 - lordmoldywart (09/27/2013) [-]
No, we were talking about the unknown deity
#466 to #81 - anon (09/27/2013) [-]
I have no idea why you're getting thumbed down.

It's impossible to know something that can't be proven (at least can't be proven yet) and claiming you do know it makes you claiming the impossible hence makes you arrogant.
#88 to #81 - graytimber (09/26/2013) [-]
I'm sorry, I didn't log on to FunnyJunk to have a debate on whether or not I'm arrogant.

I mean this with real sincerity, I hope have a lovely day.
#523 to #81 - morkotlap (09/27/2013) [-]
It's not impossible to know. While the existence of god per se can be sretched to fit the proven knowledge, it's merit can not. Religion stands on many premises, such as existence and meaningful definition of concepts such as self, entity and existence. When one or more of these concepts lose merit, so does the concept of god.

And while science have not proven "whether god exists", it has proven, via psychology that ego is just social awareness tool that can be turned off. Via neural nets that mind itself is just a mathematical construct, via philosophy that definition of entity or existence is arbitrary. And when the definition of being is arbitrary, so becomes the definition of supreme being. A desperate endeavor to see the universe with a comforting mask of a human face.

So am I arrogant for refusing to consider a concept that conflicts phenomena I can repeat?
User avatar #528 to #523 - lordmoldywart (09/27/2013) [-]
It is impossible to know. There is no evidence to prove a God exists, nor is there evidence to prove no God exists.

You described an idea (a concept as you admit), not facts. You can't claim to know something based on an idea
#531 to #528 - morkotlap (09/27/2013) [-]
Everything you claim to know are just ideas. There are no facts. Only interpretations.

When god's existence conflicts what I know, I am safe to claim that I know that god does not exist.
User avatar #537 to #531 - lordmoldywart (09/27/2013) [-]
What have I claimed to know so far that can't be taken as fact?

Keeping in mind I haven't mentioned a specific God from any mainstream religion so far, and don't intend that to be the subject of our debate. I'm just talking about any general deity, maybe one that we have never heard of before, maybe one that we have. As far as either of us know, if there is a God, this God may not conflict what you know at all, yet again he may conflict what you know. No one knows, and therefore you'd be wrong to claim anything about the existence/non-existence of this God as we know nothing about it, if it even exists.
#541 to #537 - morkotlap (09/27/2013) [-]
Yet i explained why the concept of god/deity is doubtful for me from the very definition. If it can be called a god, it does contradict what I know. And since I don't have any evidence for god's existence and plenty of evidence for what i hold true, I must conclude god in any form does not exist.
User avatar #543 to #541 - lordmoldywart (09/27/2013) [-]
What you hold true, I assume is the big bang theory? That before that happened, there was no matter in the universe and therefore no time for a God to exist? If there is a deity we'd assume they're the one that puts the laws of physics (matter/time) into place, and therefore don't have to follow these guidelines, correct? If that's not what you referring to, please tell me because you haven't as of yet. Because the second part of #523 doesn't prove/disprove anything, as the facts behind psychological science are very risky to take to heart as we know so little about our psychy
#549 to #543 - morkotlap (09/27/2013) [-]
Basically, the concept of god claims that there is mind behind the reality. And since we don't have better definition of mind than "human-like behaviour", I don't think it's reasonable to award this quality to the reality.
User avatar #577 to #549 - lordmoldywart (09/27/2013) [-]
That is true, but is not factual evidence behind the disproving of a deity, it is an idea. That's all I'm saying
#622 to #577 - morkotlap (09/27/2013) [-]
Whether is the flaw theoretical or empiric does not matter in deciding whether or not is the phenomena ******** . Am I arrogant for finding the very concept of god absurd?
User avatar #627 to #622 - lolollo (09/27/2013) [-]
While it's understandable to not believe in the existence of a God based on the lack of proof, it's just as assumative to say that the same lack of proof is proof possitive that God definitely doesn't exist. It's extremely closed minded.

How far do you think science would be today if people just glossed over ideas and hypothesis that didn't have any data to support them yet?

Like the existence of the atom. Matter has always been comprised of atoms, yet back before we could observe matter than small, it would have been silly to say that atoms existed, yet saying that the lack of empirical proof meant they didn't exist would have been just as incorrect.

Make sense?
#648 to #627 - morkotlap (09/27/2013) [-]
I never cited the lack of empirical proof alone. Concepts can be held true without empirics supproting them (e.g the whole Mathematics).

When two concepts contradict each other then by holding one of them true, you must also hold the other false. At least within the boundaries of logic where the truthiness of the first hold. When I see proofs of concepts that contradict the concept of god and no proof that would support the concept of god I must simply hold the very concept of god as meaningless.

To use your very metaphor, greek atomism was built around the concept of classical elements. Without it, whole definition of atoms would be meaningless at the time. And so is current definition of god.
User avatar #678 to #648 - lolollo (09/28/2013) [-]
I'm assuming the two contradicting ideas are "God exists" and "God doesn't exist." Here's the thing, you say that you don't know which one is true until you have proof for either side. You don't have to pick one and then say the other is false, It's an incredibly rigid way of thinking, especially since there are multiple definitions for God as well, even more than the stereotypical theological ideologies will teach you.

It's like politics, you don't have to pick either side, you choose to be independent because both sides are incredibly misguided viewpoints.
#691 to #678 - morkotlap (09/28/2013) [-]
Yet when I have proof for one view (see earlier discussion) I see nothing wrong with holding the opposite false.
User avatar #698 to #691 - lolollo (09/28/2013) [-]
You don't have proof for either view though. You can't use a lack of proof for one side as proof positive for the opposition. That's a fallacy.
#711 to #678 - morkotlap (09/29/2013) [-]
I have no quarrel with omnipotence and omniscience. The universe can be described as a all-knowing and all-powerful state automaton. The thing I have problem with are the human-like behaviours (such as mind, emotions and such) that is commonly atributed to it and actualy are part of the definition. God without mind is no different from atheist's vast and uncaring universe.
User avatar #712 to #711 - lolollo (09/30/2013) [-]
The thing you have a quarrel with makes no difference on the potential existence of a God who is simply defined as having omniscience, and omnipotence then.
#703 to #678 - morkotlap (09/29/2013) [-]
There are many, but to cite one of the simple one: The whole bible is cut and pasted from Iranian and Egyptian mythology. This supports the viewpoint that concept of god is a meme like any other, which conflicts any relation with supreme being.

My whole argument before stood on claim, that even the term supreme mind is in conflict with conception of god as there is no better definition of mind than "human-like behaviour" and I am pretty sure that the universe is far more complex than that.
User avatar #710 to #703 - lolollo (09/29/2013) [-]
All that does is support the claim that those particular God's can't possibly exist, but not that an omniscient, omnipotent God doesn't exist. Those stories are just interpretations of how they think an omnipotent/scient would think and behave, but realize that we're all imperfect, and biased as hell.

It makes sense to be sceptical that the Middle Eastern God Allah would favor middle easterns so much, so says the middle easterns, because that's subject to so much bias.

like...all of the bias.

But that doesn't mean a God who's simply omnipotent and omniscient doesn't exist, just that God as defined by the middle easterns probably doesn't exist. That's part of the reason atheists probably seem so annoying, we all know how easy it is to debunk a God as defined by a particular sect of people, but no one seems to care about trying to disprove a God where the only criteria he/she would meet is omnipotence, and omniscience.
User avatar #633 to #622 - lordmoldywart (09/27/2013) [-]
You'd be arrogant to claim you know a God doesn't exist. You may strongly believe a God doesn't exist, which would be fine, but you can't claim to know the unknowable.
#642 to #633 - morkotlap (09/27/2013) [-]
By the same logic you cannot claim to know anything as you can always be just within some kind of dream or whatever. Anything is unknowable to some degree. Thus knowing must mean holding something true with the information i now possess. How is that arrogant?
User avatar #681 to #642 - lordmoldywart (09/28/2013) [-]
To some degree yes, anything is unknowable, but some more than others. In the case of comparing the existence/non-existence of a deity to whether we're all in one big dream, one is much more observable than the other, i.e. the latter

To know something you need facts, there are no facts behind neither the existence nor the non-existence of a deity, therefore you cannot claim to know either way. It is arrogant to claim to know either way, as you are exaggerating your own abilities in claiming to know the unknowable. That is how it is arrogant

#709 to #681 - morkotlap (09/29/2013) [-]
Then this might be the point of disagreement. I think that the existence of ponies underneath the surface of the moon would contradict enough rules we made from observation on earth to elicit valid claim of "knowing" such thing cannot and does not exist. People claim to "know" far less probable things without sounding arrogant. Good example is almost anything claimed to be "known" about other people personal things.

Also, the greek atomism was largerly accepted in classical greece. Which cannot be said about europe from 18th century to this day, since greek atomism was based on classical elements(fire, earth, water and air) and geometry. Not a single postulate of classical atomism is consistent with early enlightenment atomic theories and is not consistent with today's quantum physics.

So yes, the ancient greek were wrong even if the name of their concept survived into the modern era. And the enlightement scientist were not arrogant to disprove their claim even without an electron microscope.
#707 to #681 - morkotlap has deleted their comment [-]
#706 to #681 - morkotlap (09/29/2013) [-]
I said abrahamic one, because your criteria of a sole creator, ruler and judge fits only the god of jews, muslims and christians. There are far more complicated deistic systems than that. But for the sake of an argument, let's call abrahamic god our general God.

I know what you were getting at, and I hoped i showed with the ecosystem parable, how i feel about existence about god.

You still can judge the merit of an idea without observation. For example I know there are no little pink ponies living on the surface of the moon eating moon sugar without ever observing one. And I say so with great degree of certainity because while I never seen a pink pony, I know something about animal morphology and astrophysics. Their existence conflicts almost everything I know about this world, so to reckon them possible, I'd also have to, by the same measure, reckon all my knowledge a lie. And while the possibility exists, it's in the same group as the "everything is a dream" scenario, which, when accounted would make impossible to claim to know anything.
User avatar #708 to #706 - lordmoldywart (09/29/2013) [-]
An idea may have merit yes, but merit alone, without observation, doesn't constitute it to be fact, like the existence/non-existence of God. As regards to pink ponies, we have observed the surface of the moon, and unless there's some giant government conspiracy, no pink ponies have been reported. However, underneath the moons surface? Who knows, maybe these pink ponies have evolved to no longer need a respiratory system. It may sound absurd, but the idea of atoms was absurd before the invention of the microscope, so was the idea that we actually evolve around the sun - not the other way around.
#704 to #681 - morkotlap (09/29/2013) [-]
Yet till an observation is made, god is not a fact that can be proven/disproven by observation. It is only an idea. A concept, that makes people make wild predictions, neither of them testable.

So we are talking the abrahamic god.

To continue your analogy, I would claim, that the question of whether there is or is not a plant life is meaningless, since the plant is by definition descendant of earth algae. It might sound petty, but the possible implications are grand enough to deserve it. The closest meaningful question would be something along the lines "Is there something similar to an ecosystem?".

And I have the same problem with existence of god. It is too specific even in the most spread definition. In our analogy it would be pretty much like seeing the exoplanet in habitable zone and asking questions like "What fur color do have the bears up there? How long are the trekky green aliens head-tentacles?".

There is an absurdly small chance that there actualy are such, but the uncertainity is far bellow the treshhold of "knowing". (About the same that your whole life is a well scripted TV play or something along these lines)
User avatar #705 to #704 - lordmoldywart (09/29/2013) [-]
At the moment, God is just an idea yes, but there is a chance it may be true, and a chance it may not be, so you cannot claim one way or the other

And for the record, I've been talking about God in a general sense, I haven't been talking about any particular God, because chances are if there is God it won't be the God like in any of the mainstream religions.

Ok, and ecosystem then, you know what I was getting at though

Is the definition of God in the general sense really that specific? Sure, the Abrahamic/Christian God may be specific, but I'd prefer it if we just talk about God in a general sense. And in that general sense, a God is defined quite simply as creator and ruler of the Universe, and is the source of all moral authority. I'm sure if you break all of those aspects down it can become specific, but at face value the definition is very simple. God creates, God rules, that's all there is to it.

What I was getting at in my last point was until we observe something no one can claim to know its existence/non-existence. Because before then, we don't have evidence enough to claim either way, sure we can be quite or really sure or something, but it is still just an idea until we observe it.
#695 to #681 - morkotlap (09/28/2013) [-]
As i said before, there is no meaningful division between facts and ideas. There are only interpretations of empirics that are more or less complex. As with my parable with mathemathics, I stand by my statement, that concept can be theoreticaly disproven the same way it can be empiricaly. It's even stronger, since empirics can be always attributed to chance, whereas theoretical disproval is not dependant on observation.

But this is not even the case, since I clearly stated that the definition of god in the broadest sense is not compatible with my life experience, hence there are plenty of "facts" to support it.
User avatar #697 to #695 - lordmoldywart (09/28/2013) [-]
The meaningful division between facts and ideas is that facts are proven claims that have been backed up by evidence. Ideas however, whilst some can be backed up by evidence, others can't. Unlike facts, not all ideas can be proven/unproven, like the idea of a God for example. You cannot claim fact either way because there is no evidence that we possess that can back up either claim.

The definition of God that we're using I thought would be incredibly clear. A creator and ruler of the Universe, and source of all moral authority. No life experience can prove the existence or non-existence of said God, and thus cannot be claimed as fact.

You keep using the word empiric, but I don't think you're using it in the correct way. An empiric is a practitioner in a branch of science, who relies solely on observation and experimentation to carry out their work/research. And from what I gather from the context of your usage of the word, you weren't talking about a person.

In my next point I am going to assume that by empiric, you meant observation, and discuss my point based around your use of the word.

>"It's even stronger, since empirics can be always attributed to chance, whereas theoretical disproval is not dependant on observation."

Yes theoretical disproval is not dependant on observation, so how can you trust it? Proving or disproving something theoretically opens it up to the chance of being proven/disproven the other way in future. If we were to claim that a particular plant (whatever it may be called) from the coral reef is of a yellow colour, we could take a sample of the plant and observe its colour and claim to know that its colour is yellow. However, if we were to claim to know that there was plantlife on a planet in a galaxy millions of light years away, simply because we observed that planets radiation signature and believed that it could support life,we would be wrong to do so, for we have not observed its surface (to check for said plantlife).
#690 to #681 - morkotlap (09/28/2013) [-]
What "facts" do i need to know to say that there is no ratio of circumference of the circle and it's radius (as it's irrational). While you may say there now exists the irrational ratio, before this was known, the broadest definition of ratio was a pair of number. And similarily I claim that there is nothing that would fit within broadest definiton of god. I do not need facts to theoreticaly disprove something. Else the math would not work.
User avatar #693 to #690 - lordmoldywart (09/28/2013) [-]
Without facts or evidence to backup your idea, it remains an idea, it can not be known either way because you don't have the information to set an answer in stone. And you're seriously going to debate that? Really?

You can't prove or disprove anything without having facts/evidence to back up your claim. This in itself is a fact, and cannot be disputed, no matter how hard you try. I could claim that we are the only galaxy in the universe and that all the other galaxies we see is just the milky way playing tricks on our telescopes. Apparently I don't need facts to backup my claim, so theoretically it's true.
User avatar #423 to #81 - guitarnigger (09/27/2013) [-]
come on man not all gnostic theists/atheists have to be arrogant just because theyre gnostic, they start to be arrogant at the point they start to shout it out loud to everyone, believing you're smarter. You can just believe in god/believe there is no god and keep that to yourself (maybe say it from time to time when the topic's up, but not bragging)
User avatar #540 to #423 - lordmoldywart (09/27/2013) [-]
If they claim to know something that can't be known, they have an exaggerated sense of their own ability, and therefore fit the definition of arrogant, re: #456
User avatar #20 - benjamino (09/26/2013) [-]
I was an Agnostic Theist.

Until I found the Flying Spaghetti Monster. My whole issue with being agnostic is I wanted to believe there was something more than what we see, a life beyond this. The Flying Spaghetti Monster is by far the nicest and most reasonable religion I have heard of, with a decent explanation as to why science can disprove what it says. So I choose FSM.

Has His Noodly Appendage touched you?
#176 to #20 - anon (09/27/2013) [-]
What type of FSM are you? Reformed or Aboriginal?
User avatar #293 to #176 - owlexterminator (09/27/2013) [-]
What the **** did you just say?! "What type of FSM are you?" BITCH NOBODY IS A ******* FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER EXCEPT FOR FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER. CHRIST.
#363 to #20 - mastereleven (09/27/2013) [-]
bless this comment
#166 - puccypirateisback **User deleted account** (09/27/2013) [-]
User avatar #230 to #166 - erpee (09/27/2013) [-]
^Lightbulb's fw
#571 - herbolifee (09/27/2013) [-]
If you ask me, the only realistic view is an agnostic one, theist or atheist. Sure, speculate all you want, but it's a very obvious fact that we don't know **** , and most likely will never know in our lifetime.
#574 to #571 - derpyhoovezz (09/27/2013) [-]
Thats one of the stupidest ******* excuses for a theist i have ever heard
#586 to #574 - herbolifee (09/27/2013) [-]
You're completely missing the point. I'm saying that whatever you believe, you can never be sure about it, so claiming it to be true is just silly. Also, I'm an atheist...
User avatar #578 to #574 - anonymoose (09/27/2013) [-]
But it's not an excuse for being a theist. It's an excuse for being open about your belief either way.
#326 - bumpin (09/27/2013) [-]
So basically, Gnostics are assholes
#390 to #326 - bobbysnobby (09/27/2013) [-]
Doubt you care but gnostic and agnostic are opposite sides debating states of knowledge. A Gnostic believes the question "Does god exist" believes that question has a knowable answer, an agnostic believes it has no knowable answer. Thats the only distinction. Agnostic, Atheist, and Infidel are all different and are not mutually exclusive one is a position about knowledge, one is a position of belief, and one is a condemnation of faith.
#360 to #326 - yuukoku (09/27/2013) [-]
No, they're just not understanding or accepting of other people's opinions...

Oh, wait...

Yeah, they're ass holes.
User avatar #515 to #360 - lorkhan ONLINE (09/27/2013) [-]
I'm a gnostic atheist and I won't judge you for being religious or whatever you believe, I just seriously believe that there is no god. I have no good evidence its just my opinion. So how about you respect my opinion eh?
#500 to #360 - pachecodos (09/27/2013) [-]
That's wrong.

I am sure God doesn't exist. That doesn't mean i'm gonna kill or shout or insult anyone that believes in God. I have friends that believe in God, i have friends in all the expectrum of the image and I respect them. But what the **** , I don't believe in God.

This is ******* sick. If you are sure of something that means you are not understanding or accepting of other people's opinions? No, it just means you are sure of something.
#374 to #360 - teenytinyspider (09/27/2013) [-]
Not all of them.
#296 - Hybricide (09/27/2013) [-]
I really enjoy the IDEA of a higher power that we all answer to in the end, but at the same time, I don't see how it's possible. Personally, I WISH I could be religious, but I can't get over the fact that it doesn't seem like it would be real.
I really enjoy the IDEA of a higher power that we all answer to in the end, but at the same time, I don't see how it's possible. Personally, I WISH I could be religious, but I can't get over the fact that it doesn't seem like it would be real.
User avatar #317 to #296 - darkforces ONLINE (09/27/2013) [-]
I hear ya man, I wish that I believed that there was a heaven and that there was a god, it would have made the loss of my mother easier. I just don't understand how it would all come about, how it was all created.
#104 - lolfire (09/26/2013) [-]
Nobody cares which you are.    
Nobody cares about your opinions or beliefs.    
Now keep that in mind for the rest of your life.
Nobody cares which you are.

Nobody cares about your opinions or beliefs.

Now keep that in mind for the rest of your life.
User avatar #344 to #104 - MANana (09/27/2013) [-]
i like you
#475 to #104 - tyraxio (09/27/2013) [-]
Aww man, what's the name of that film? I've forgotten, I just remember it was pretty good.
User avatar #550 to #475 - teefa (09/27/2013) [-]
shaun of the dead.
#106 to #104 - clifford (09/26/2013) [-]
Take car, go to Mum's, kill Phil (sorry), go to the winchester, have a nice cold pint, and wait for this whole thing to blow over.
#150 to #106 - shishiko **User deleted account** (09/27/2013) [-]
User avatar #109 to #104 - navadae (09/26/2013) [-]
problem with this here is.. all the people that jump down your throat for not believing what they do

you know it happens
#563 - redflame (09/27/2013) [-]
I don't know if there's a god or not. But I hope he exist and he's an asshole
User avatar #702 to #563 - lunacatz (09/29/2013) [-]
Have any more "Jesus as a troll" drawings, I've lost them.
#102 - gmarrox (09/26/2013) [-]
If God doesn't exist, why are donuts both delicious and 			********		?   
			********		 food: 1   
evolution: 0
If God doesn't exist, why are donuts both delicious and ******** ?

******** food: 1
evolution: 0
#16 - trailoftears (09/26/2013) [-]
Agnostic Theist, except i don't believe there may well be a god, but that rather any higher power or powers. But i live closely in touch with neopaganism because i like the mentality.
#32 - ninjabadger (09/26/2013) [-]
I know you're not allowed to have opinions on the internet... but how is believing there might be a god so hard, and I mean in the logical sense.

Let's just face it, how do you really think everything started? It was just... there? Some being of immense power (something we obviously can't understand) had to have done something to have set the pieces and put everything into motion. And I'm not talking about some "God" that cares about living beings, or any "formalized" religion... I'm talking the very creator of everything we know. I don't think matter could have just simply existed. Everything has to have a beginning.

I don't think settling on an idea that everything has been there is good enough for any scientific reason. We might have an idea of how things work, but we never ask why they work that way... why things (like properties of matter, atoms, all that good jazz) are as they are. I don't think we'll ever be able to figure it out ourselves. The universe is like a game, and we can't really understand the intricacies outside of our relative reality. We're all just pieces so to speak in the immense scheme of things.

On a personal note...I don't believe we need to worship anyone, I don't believe anyone watches over us (protectively), and I don't believe we exist in any form after death. I do believe that we should show kindness to others, to make the one life we all get good for everyone, or for they very least good for one's self. You don't need scriptures written decades ago to be a good person. Religion is good in concept (for what it should do) but has been carried out very poorly in our brief existence.

I'm really sorry for the length of that, and I hope I don't offend anyone. I anticipate some hate and counterarguments so feel free to do so. And above all else, remember that this is my opinion... not concrete fact.
User avatar #34 to #32 - spacehawk (09/26/2013) [-]
"Everything has to have a beginning" You cant be sure of that. Our minds just can't comprehend the possibility that maybe the universe has always existed and always will.
#35 to #34 - ninjabadger (09/26/2013) [-]
That's why we made the concept of an afterlife... we can't comprehend an ultimate end either.

But you are right, none of us can be sure of anything. The easiest concept though is to say everything always existed. An easier one to cope with is that some godlike entity began everything. I've had thoughts on multi-universal (pardon any wrong terminology) theory... it can get you thinking. There are just so many possibilities... endless variables....
User avatar #36 to #32 - bodyrokr (09/26/2013) [-]
For me at least its more that there is no solid proof of a power in existence, and that with the vastness of the universe statistically there has to be at least one planet where life could grow and evolve into what we are now. That and I have a deep seated hatred for most overly religious, particularly christians. Mostly due to the fact that christianity has been forced onto those who want nothing to do with it and were unsuccessful in repelling the invaders away.
**TLDR* Science be praised, We don't want your silly book.
User avatar #38 to #36 - ninjabadger (09/26/2013) [-]
My thoughts are more on who (or what) set the guidelines that dictate science... of course we've proved a lot using science, like how atoms work together and how they are constructed, but what made it so? I'm just not satisfied with an answer that doesn't delve deeper and I don't think any of us should be if we truly want to unravel the truths of this universe. But I suppose if we have to go the scientific route, we'll need solid evidence like you stated to truly prove a higher being/construct exists.

But yes, praise be science.
#381 to #32 - anon (09/27/2013) [-]
I don't believe there is a god. I have faith there's an answer out there that we may never fully understand. I mean look at quantum mechanics. If that's all real. Hell I wouldn't be surprised if the universe did start from nothing. The fabric of reality gets weirder and weirder as you go smaller. Look at it this way. There couldn't have been anything before matter. Because there was no time before matter. Thus it's just inherent law of the universe that stuff exists. It never began, it just was. I have faith that it is not necessary for there to be a grand intelligence to start it all.
User avatar #63 to #32 - uzbekistan (09/26/2013) [-]
The whole "How do you think everything started" thing ruined your entire comment. How do you the think the person who "created" us start out? Please tell me since you are so well informed on how matter can not just be "there" yet it can be created by a giant guy with a beard metaphor . I will thumb you up as your are one of the few people who try to say this and aren't complete assholes about it but still.
User avatar #73 to #63 - ninjabadger (09/26/2013) [-]
You are completely right, once you hit the idea of God... everything logical kind of comes to a halt... God is pretty much the point where we cannot fathom to understand the intricacies that could be associated with him.

But in the material sense... matter had to have come from somewhere....

Whether this being that had the power to do so existed forever, well we won't ever figure that out. The whole concept of God is just so damn complex when you get down to it. I'm just trying to provide an explanation for everything we can understand and observe, such as matter and the universe (to some degree).

This is why I hate putting this opinion out there... because at the end of the day... we just don't know and we can't hope to know. We're too insignificant and small.

User avatar #44 to #32 - reaperriley ONLINE (09/26/2013) [-]
So you are basically saying..... there had to be something to start the universe? Not in the sense of the omnipresent all knowing beings that every religion comes up with.

I can dig it. Something or someone had to set off the events. But it will be a while till we figure it out.
#52 to #32 - thismustbeseen (09/26/2013) [-]
I will thumb you up because you at least seem respectable in the end.

You seem to think it must have been some conscious entity that began everything? Why?
I assume you believe that mountains, the earth, stars, all came about through some natural process. Why not the whole universe? It would be inconsistent to suddenly say, there must have been a god at this step, especially now when it seems likely that there are many universes, no giant inexplicable hole in our understanding, except maybe dark matter?

I would call you a deist, which in my books is the position that seems consistent scientifically, for the most part, and has a god in it. My GF is a deist, and as far as I can tell, the thought that it was a conscious entity brings you some comfort in some way. Personally it seems unlikely and unnecessary.

We would disagree a lot more on the historical 'purpose' of religion though.
User avatar #55 to #52 - ninjabadger (09/26/2013) [-]
Well, I simply find it hard to not believe in something like a "God" because it seems to make the most sense. I just don't see how matter could have existed indefinitely... it just doesn't make sense. We can't really pretend to know how everything came about being, we can only speculate. So perhaps I am wrong, perhaps I am right. We won't likely last long enough to find that answer.

Personally, I am not a fan of most organized religions and I suspect you feel the same way. I'm just saying there is most likely some being/entity/construct that started the universe in the simplest of ways and let it go about it's own devices with rules it might have crafted.

I have a crazy theory about how multiple universes might either be constructs of a single entity or perhaps each was created by a separate entity to be observed. Perhaps there is a collective of higher beings. Who can say though, we can only make guesses on this kind of thing. We're far too small and insignificant to really grasp something like this.
#61 to #55 - thismustbeseen (09/26/2013) [-]
I am not saying matter existed indefinitely. Moments after the big bang matter itself did not exist, it was just a soup of elementary particles. When the universe is so tiny, what we think of as matter ceases to be.

On the other stuff, I agree, we are too small and we'll likely never know. What's more, we'll likely never need to know. If you think that it's more likely it was some kind of god/gods that started it all, beyond our knowledge and power of deduction, that's fine.

It's possible that in the near future all of humanity will end up believing in either one of our visions, and that's as far as it may ever go. I'm probably naive though.
User avatar #67 to #61 - ninjabadger (09/26/2013) [-]
Oh I believe in the Big Bang... allow me to clarify what I meant before.

How do you suppose the "particles" that were a part of the Big Bang got there? How did anything prior to this event come to be?

When you keep asking questions, you get to a point where they can't be answered anymore... that's the point where I decided the answer must be something beyond comprehension. And that answer I've come to put my faith in is that there must be some kind of God (or at least what we would perceive as God). Of course, not in the sense that traditional religion sees him, simply as the spark that ignited the universe.

Sorry if that sounds condescending or anything, now it sounds like I'm trying to convert you. I want to assure you that's not really my intention... just some thought provoking stuff. I hope some sapient species figures it all out one day.

#96 to #67 - thismustbeseen (09/26/2013) [-]
Beyond or before the big bang, there is no way to prove anything either of us says. All we have is speculation and hypothesis. If I was knowledgeable in it, I could mathematically model or explain how everything came to be from the point of the big bang, but what set it in motion I could only guess at.

I don't think this question is all that useful practically speaking. That we might disagree does not affect the world as we know it, it's merely something to ponder philosophically.

Its interesting that you are so sure that it was a god, a conscious entity. It could have been a natural process like two black holes colliding, or maybe the result of an experiment of some finite alien race, or even something beyond explanation or description or understanding to us. It may be an unknown so infinitely profound we can't help but try to put something there, some kind of answer.

I tell myself that I can be contented not to know, but I think everyone feels the need for an answer, something, anything relatable.
User avatar #105 to #96 - ninjabadger (09/26/2013) [-]
Yeah, I really like philosophical things so this is something I always think about. The whole concept of the unknown fascinates me. Perhaps it would be better if I just phrased it as a godlike entity earlier, because to be honest we really don't know. But what we can infer, is that whatever happened had to be immensely powerful or complex. I just chose to fill that gap we can't really answer with some kind of godlike being... and I'm guessing you filled it with something less eccentric. To each his own.

I thoroughly enjoyed this discussion, it was interesting. Have a pleasant day, good sir.
#121 to #105 - thismustbeseen (09/26/2013) [-]
My gut tells me it must have been something powerful too... but then why? As far as I know, the laws of physics break down completely at the big bang. So I think it could have been anything or nothing or everything. It's unknown. Regardless of what either of us says, what would have caused that, what created your god? what created my alien race or colliding black holes?

Maybe there is no point in guessing and it's best to accept that we instinctively need an explanation even when it's impossible to get one, even by thought experiment. It's just so hard for me to accept that there may be something we might be utterly and forever clueless about.

Until we get more answers, go with whatever feels best I guess.

I enjoyed this as well. Good day.
#133 to #32 - dwarfman (09/26/2013) [-]
The first thing a God masters is himself.
#392 - cosmicapprentice (09/27/2013) [-]
Ya all ************* need Yog Sothoth
#107 - trollmobile (09/26/2013) [-]
why are we bearded?

not complaining, just curious.
User avatar #167 to #107 - IamSofaKingdom (09/27/2013) [-]
Protection form the elements would be a reason to grow hair all over the body.
#547 - jertzula (09/27/2013) [-]
I don't care if someones agnostic, gnostic, atheist, or theist. As long as you're white <3
Leave a comment
 Friends (0)