Upload
Login or register

anonionbagel

Last status update:
-
Date Signed Up:11/28/2012
Last Login:2/19/2013
FunnyJunk Career Stats
Content Thumbs: 9 total,  1 ,  10
Comment Thumbs: 160 total,  420 ,  260
Content Level Progress: 0% (0/1)
Level -9 Content: Sort of disliked → Level -6 Content: Sort of disliked
Comment Level Progress: 0% (0/5)
Level 110 Comments: Funny Junkie → Level 111 Comments: Funny Junkie
Subscribers:0
Content Views:261
Total Comments Made:132
FJ Points:173

latest user's comments

#96 - The year I don't give a **** about these feel posts. Year as i… 02/05/2013 on The feels -8
#92 - Pretty sure you're naturally born a lesbian, couldn't tell if … 02/05/2013 on Thanks Matt +6
#230 - Picture 02/05/2013 on 12 Men +3
#54 - So many of these boring cat/dog posts... we get it, they're di… 02/05/2013 on Funny co-pilot -2
#22 - This belongs on the morbid channel. 02/04/2013 on Guess Where 0
#159 - I think I summed that up in the last bit of my previous commen… 02/04/2013 on Terry Pratchett on God 0
#157 - Well, not really... I just said in my response that the atoms …  [+] (2 new replies) 02/04/2013 on Terry Pratchett on God 0
User avatar
#158 - Crusader (02/04/2013) [-]
Ok a few things.
A deity =/= a god
Brahmin is the god of Hinduism, Khali is a deity of destruction.
Also, if there was an omnipotent (meaning all-powerful) person controlling the universe, and he didn't want you to know he was there, do you think that you would be able to find out, meaning that he would not be powerful enough to stop you, meaning that he would not be omnipotent?
User avatar
#159 - anonionbagel (02/04/2013) [-]
I think I summed that up in the last bit of my previous comment, this god would be an infinite paradox, and would not be able to be anything in the infinitude of... well, infinity.
#155 - Okay, let me correct yah' there. You can't 'believe' in scienc…  [+] (4 new replies) 02/04/2013 on Terry Pratchett on God 0
User avatar
#156 - Crusader (02/04/2013) [-]
That's a straw man argument.
My entire point is that you cannot prove nor can you disprove that a god exists (a deity is different than a god).
If you say something doesn't exist because it is not matter than there are many things that don't exist because they are not matter, memories and emotions being chief among them, because those are just electrical impulses and various chemicals respectively.
The entire point of a god is that they don't exist, while also existing at the same time.
The keyboard analogy does not work, I never said that it is non-visible, I said it is unobservable, you can observe a keyboard without it being visible by touching, smelling, tasting, listening to the keys type, etc.
Also remember that something being "real" is relative to that person's perspective. What is real to a child is not real to an adult, what is real to you might not be real to someone else.
For instance, you take a hit of acid, and you start imagining that you are petting a dog, your mind can see the dog, feel the dog, hear it, etc. But that is just to you, if I am sober, I won't see the dog, nor hear it, etc. If I were to take a hit of acid as well, I may see, hear, feel, etc anything, instead of petting a dog, I might imagine riding a horse.
Both of those instances would be very real to us, but they would not be visible, they would not be made of matter, they would not exist to most of the world.
Hence why they call religion the "opiate of the masses"
User avatar
#157 - anonionbagel (02/04/2013) [-]
Well, not really... I just said in my response that the atoms and electronic ways the brain stores information are in fact, real, but not THINGS, they are not the same as, which I did use correctly, matter, which religions portray; god would be a figment of thought rather than a being which people would see him as, just like all thoughts, memories, and general chemicals. If the whole "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" is being used here, it doesn't really help; if there is no evidence of something, and no evidence against something, than it is yet to be discovered; science is always about discovery and trying to prove an idea right or wrong. An omnipotent supreme being would be something that would be seen as part of infinity, but the chances of such and the chances of the deities in current day society are basically none, as such thing existing would prove much of what we know today as false, and in self, would falsify itself, making it a paradox, like many things. Interesting stuff to think about :)
User avatar
#158 - Crusader (02/04/2013) [-]
Ok a few things.
A deity =/= a god
Brahmin is the god of Hinduism, Khali is a deity of destruction.
Also, if there was an omnipotent (meaning all-powerful) person controlling the universe, and he didn't want you to know he was there, do you think that you would be able to find out, meaning that he would not be powerful enough to stop you, meaning that he would not be omnipotent?
User avatar
#159 - anonionbagel (02/04/2013) [-]
I think I summed that up in the last bit of my previous comment, this god would be an infinite paradox, and would not be able to be anything in the infinitude of... well, infinity.
#114 - These atheist posts always rile up the christians, which makes…  [+] (9 new replies) 02/03/2013 on Terry Pratchett on God +2
User avatar
#152 - Crusader (02/04/2013) [-]
You assume that all atheists believe in science, while there are many who simply don't care, or don't know, but simply don't think there is a higher being.
Not to mention that there are several theories as to how science and a Judaic god can both exist.
Getting back to the original topic, atheists think there is no god, when there is no way to say whether god truly exists or not, therefore no evidence., THEREFORE, atheists BELIEVE that there is no God, which is just as much as a belief as thinking there is a god.
Because there is no way to have an definite answer on something that cannot be observed.
User avatar
#155 - anonionbagel (02/04/2013) [-]
Okay, let me correct yah' there. You can't 'believe' in science, I just quickly explained how science is evidence and facts, it's true even if you believe in it or not. Again, theories are ideas supported by evidence, their is absolutely no disputable evidence for a deity being that any popular religion believes in. Lastly, yes, it is possible to tell whether or not something that is non-visible exists or not, by making a comparison: I can say this keyboard I am typing on is a physical object that is located in this universe, dimension, and all infinite ways, because it is, I have evidence; I can NOT say that my imaginary friend is real, because he is not matter, the evidence is the fact that something that is matter would be there, visible or not. Don't misunderstand me, things that are thought waves can technically exist, but not in the physical (or matter) way that religion follows; your god can technically exist, in your mind, as a thought, but not as part of matter. Hope this cleared things up, I wasn't trying to be mean or anything if it came off that way :P
User avatar
#156 - Crusader (02/04/2013) [-]
That's a straw man argument.
My entire point is that you cannot prove nor can you disprove that a god exists (a deity is different than a god).
If you say something doesn't exist because it is not matter than there are many things that don't exist because they are not matter, memories and emotions being chief among them, because those are just electrical impulses and various chemicals respectively.
The entire point of a god is that they don't exist, while also existing at the same time.
The keyboard analogy does not work, I never said that it is non-visible, I said it is unobservable, you can observe a keyboard without it being visible by touching, smelling, tasting, listening to the keys type, etc.
Also remember that something being "real" is relative to that person's perspective. What is real to a child is not real to an adult, what is real to you might not be real to someone else.
For instance, you take a hit of acid, and you start imagining that you are petting a dog, your mind can see the dog, feel the dog, hear it, etc. But that is just to you, if I am sober, I won't see the dog, nor hear it, etc. If I were to take a hit of acid as well, I may see, hear, feel, etc anything, instead of petting a dog, I might imagine riding a horse.
Both of those instances would be very real to us, but they would not be visible, they would not be made of matter, they would not exist to most of the world.
Hence why they call religion the "opiate of the masses"
User avatar
#157 - anonionbagel (02/04/2013) [-]
Well, not really... I just said in my response that the atoms and electronic ways the brain stores information are in fact, real, but not THINGS, they are not the same as, which I did use correctly, matter, which religions portray; god would be a figment of thought rather than a being which people would see him as, just like all thoughts, memories, and general chemicals. If the whole "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" is being used here, it doesn't really help; if there is no evidence of something, and no evidence against something, than it is yet to be discovered; science is always about discovery and trying to prove an idea right or wrong. An omnipotent supreme being would be something that would be seen as part of infinity, but the chances of such and the chances of the deities in current day society are basically none, as such thing existing would prove much of what we know today as false, and in self, would falsify itself, making it a paradox, like many things. Interesting stuff to think about :)
User avatar
#158 - Crusader (02/04/2013) [-]
Ok a few things.
A deity =/= a god
Brahmin is the god of Hinduism, Khali is a deity of destruction.
Also, if there was an omnipotent (meaning all-powerful) person controlling the universe, and he didn't want you to know he was there, do you think that you would be able to find out, meaning that he would not be powerful enough to stop you, meaning that he would not be omnipotent?
User avatar
#159 - anonionbagel (02/04/2013) [-]
I think I summed that up in the last bit of my previous comment, this god would be an infinite paradox, and would not be able to be anything in the infinitude of... well, infinity.
#142 - anon (02/04/2013) [-]
theres a reason the posts saying militant atheists are fucking retarded got 30 or 40 thumbs, and you, a militant atheist, got 2 thumbs.
User avatar
#123 - rhiaanor (02/04/2013) [-]
you know, arent they preaching THEIR beliefs by doing that?
#120 - comanderspy (02/03/2013) [-]
#142 - That was pretty... classical 02/03/2013 on ONLY 1300S KIDS WILL... +1