Upload
Login or register

organiclead

Last status update:
-
Personal Info
Gender: female
Age: 26
Consoles Owned: PC, 360
Video Games Played: Silent Hill, Monkey Island, Devil May Cry, Metal Gear Solid...
Interests: Video Games, Tabletop games, Biology
Date Signed Up:6/19/2012
Last Login:7/01/2016
Location:USA
FunnyJunk Career Stats
Comment Ranking:#8126
Highest Content Rank:#7515
Highest Comment Rank:#2352
Content Thumbs: 81 total,  115 ,  34
Comment Thumbs: 4251 total,  4652 ,  401
Content Level Progress: 20% (1/5)
Level 5 Content: New Here → Level 6 Content: New Here
Comment Level Progress: 98% (98/100)
Level 237 Comments: Ambassador Of Lulz → Level 238 Comments: Ambassador Of Lulz
Subscribers:0
Content Views:10963
Times Content Favorited:5 times
Total Comments Made:1241
FJ Points:3942

latest user's comments

#124 - Not anymore. Most new properties tend to be pretty freaking aw… 03/03/2015 on Why not to be a feminist +2
#79 - **** being a hero or villain, I''m going full chaotic stupid i… 03/01/2015 on FJ: Good vs. Evil 2... 0
#320 - And I'm currently supporting my ex-military boyfriend because … 02/26/2015 on But..muh oppression. 0
#31 - Tablet pens, like all pens, teleport when not directly observed.  [+] (2 new replies) 02/26/2015 on How to be a magician +13
#52 - anon (02/26/2015) [-]
That's fucking retarded.
User avatar
#39 - supersixfourr (02/26/2015) [-]
Then this was a terrible joke. Thanks
#189 - Accidentally run all 3 over because my tires suck in the rain. 02/24/2015 on moral riddle +1
#1447 - Seeing things like this makes me wonder how many people from m…  [+] (1 new reply) 02/22/2015 on Where is FJ from? +1
User avatar
#1621 - medewu (02/22/2015) [-]
I don't know.
#1650 - A late night a long time ago in which the phrase, "eat le… 02/18/2015 on Origin of your username 0
#69 - You're right there is no reason they can't, they just conveni…  [+] (2 new replies) 02/16/2015 on Atheism +5
User avatar
#73 - noblexfenrir (02/16/2015) [-]
"Depends on the person. I've meet some very, very stupid "scientific atheists" and some very smart Christians."

Their intelligence doesn't matter, the scientific method is a rigid concept of verifying reliability of information. A stupid person can apply it correctly and a intelligent individual can completely ignore it for some reason or another.

"I'll never understand it myself, but discounting an entire group of people who've only got some very, very loose ties as far as religion goes is ignorant at best and arrogant at worst."

Their approach to their religion is where they are ignorant. That is all, I am not claiming they are ignorant in other ways or areas, not am I discounting their views on other matters. I'm simply pointing out religious individuals either choose to ignore the scientific method for their beliefs, or pervert it to such a laughable degree that I would think they don't understand it to begin with.
User avatar
#172 - meganinja (02/16/2015) [-]
your anecdotal "evidence" that Christians apparently don't follow the scientific process is still bullshit. The only people who don't are uneducated dumbfucks who'd be just as retarded whether they were religious or not, but try to use their religion as justification for being dumb.
#58 - Why? There is literally no reason Christians can't follow the …  [+] (41 new replies) 02/16/2015 on Atheism +11
User avatar
#414 - mrdrprofbraeden (02/16/2015) [-]
to be fair morality is explained through science
User avatar
#268 - nigeltheoutlaw (02/16/2015) [-]
Even though noblexfenrir is being thumbed down, he is right. Christians can't follow the scientific method because they don't. If they did then they would not accept the premise of god as true without any scientific evidence. I'll probably red thumbed for this, but that doesn't make it any less true.

"There are no molecules that define morality or the meaning of life"

Holy fuck you're stupid. This is why I stopped arguing with the Christians on here; none of you have any idea what the fuck you're talking about most of the time and even when you do you still flounder about like a three year old during any arguments about science or religion. Literally all you had to do was google "morality without religion" for morality, and the meaning of life is highly personal and subjective. You call other people's ideas about it edgy, but I'm sure if your views were criticized you would whine that people should respect your beliefs.
User avatar
#121 - popeflatus (02/16/2015) [-]
Also, we have an understanding of how morality has evolved-no religion is required to understand or have morality.
User avatar
#120 - popeflatus (02/16/2015) [-]
Religion also makes claims about the universe that have been shown to be false.
User avatar
#59 - noblexfenrir (02/16/2015) [-]
" There is literally no reason Christians can't follow the scientific method."
You're right there is no reason they can't, they just conveniently don't apply it to their religion.

" Religion deals with questions that can't be measured by scientific equipment."
Then there is no good reason to believe it. You can't say you follow the scientific method, and then assign an unproven cause to something you have yet to find a way to measure and test.

"You can't collect data to see if there's a heaven or hell."
Yeah, that's why I don't believe in them. You generally shouldn't believe things that cannot be proven.

" There are no molecules that define morality"
Morality can easily be explained by naturally selected evolution and the chemistry of our brains. Not that hard.

" the meaning of life"
Meaning of life is subjective since only creatures with higher intelligence can assign importance to something outside of basic cause and effect. There's nothing supernatural about it.
User avatar
#69 - organiclead (02/16/2015) [-]
You're right there is no reason they can't, they just conveniently don't apply it to their religion.
Depends on the person. I've meet some very, very stupid "scientific atheists" and some very smart Christians. I'll never understand it myself, but discounting an entire group of people who've only got some very, very loose ties as far as religion goes is ignorant at best and arrogant at worst.
User avatar
#73 - noblexfenrir (02/16/2015) [-]
"Depends on the person. I've meet some very, very stupid "scientific atheists" and some very smart Christians."

Their intelligence doesn't matter, the scientific method is a rigid concept of verifying reliability of information. A stupid person can apply it correctly and a intelligent individual can completely ignore it for some reason or another.

"I'll never understand it myself, but discounting an entire group of people who've only got some very, very loose ties as far as religion goes is ignorant at best and arrogant at worst."

Their approach to their religion is where they are ignorant. That is all, I am not claiming they are ignorant in other ways or areas, not am I discounting their views on other matters. I'm simply pointing out religious individuals either choose to ignore the scientific method for their beliefs, or pervert it to such a laughable degree that I would think they don't understand it to begin with.
User avatar
#172 - meganinja (02/16/2015) [-]
your anecdotal "evidence" that Christians apparently don't follow the scientific process is still bullshit. The only people who don't are uneducated dumbfucks who'd be just as retarded whether they were religious or not, but try to use their religion as justification for being dumb.
User avatar
#62 - lolollo (02/16/2015) [-]
Small hypothetical. If you were to go back thousands of years and attempt to propose the structure of the atom to the people of that time, way before the tools to discover/confirm your would be claims were even a concept in anyone's minds, would you blame them for doubting you, or blame them for not noticing that you were correct in what you were saying?
User avatar
#101 - noblexfenrir (02/16/2015) [-]
"Nonexistence is the default for you, you're generalizing that to the rest of humanity under."
No, it's the default for all non-omniscient beings. Couldn't care less that you don't think so. Here's a scenario:
Because you are saying you are 50/50 you are implying if put in a scenario where you would win 100 million dollars if presented with two buttons "Believe" or "Disbelieve" and the announcer says the claim you must decide on is "My underpants are made from gods beardhairs" you're telling me you would literally not be able to press any button?

"doesn't logically lead into "therefore we set nonexistence to our default.""
Yes it does. If something cannot be determined to exist, then logically we must conclude it does not exist until provided with good reason to do so. Otherwise nothing would be more likely to be true than anything else. Doesn't matter how much evidence we have for Gravity, invisible elves holding objects down and altering trajectories, etc etc. are just as plausible in a situation where everything is equally plausible.
#102 - lolollo (02/16/2015) [-]
"No, it's the default for all non-omniscient beings"

Now what do you do?
User avatar
#106 - noblexfenrir (02/16/2015) [-]
Non-omniscient beings obviously by definition do not have all existing knowledge. When presented with the question of existence for anything without evidence you must choose to believe it with no evidence or not to so. If you choose not to accept the claim because lack of evidence, then you are choosing NOT to believe the unsupported claim. So therefor without evidence existence cannot be determined, thus disbelief until given reason to believe.

I will read and reply to your other messages tomorrow. I didn't realize this was going on so long. I am enjoying this it's been awhile since I've had a long discussion like this. Unfortunately, work and and what not in like 5 hours and I need to sleep. I will reply tomorrow around 7-8pm EST so if you would like to around then we can continue this.
User avatar
#108 - lolollo (02/16/2015) [-]
It would be sound, were it not for the fact that it completely ignores the neutral option of noting possibility without giving support, which you still don't recognize "because of reasons."
User avatar
#98 - noblexfenrir (02/16/2015) [-]
" which is that the individual is somehow constructing confidence to make a claim that's against the true nature of the universe via fallacious means"

AGAIN, humans are not omniscient. He is rejecting a claim made about the universe that he has no reason to believe because there is no evidence being provided for it. It means absolutely nothing that it's eventually found out to be true or not, at the time of being presented with the claim, there was absolutely no good reason to believe it.

If I tell you there is a star exactly 200 million lightyears and 90 degrees from the point of the pyramid of giza you have no reason to believe that claim. If we suddenly find out there is a star that lines up it doesn't change the fact that I gave no evidence when I made the claim. There was absolutely no good reason for you to believe me.

" I'm still thinking it's maybe because you somehow get the idea I'm trying to sway you into saying God exists."

Trust me, better debaters than you on this topic have tried to do a runaround with logic to get me to do that. Hasn't happened yet and I certainly don't expect it to.

User avatar
#99 - lolollo (02/16/2015) [-]
So the fact that I just challenged the exact same faulty logic you keep using is completely lost on you? You can't just keep using the "Humans aren't omniscient, therefore we reject everything" line without support and expect me to spontaneously believe in it...actually, me doing so would break your point. You telling me the line about a star being relevant to the Pyramid of Giza wouldn't be met with adamant "No, you're wrong" it would be met with "It's possible, but not yet founded."

"Trust me, better debaters than you on this topic have tried to do a runaround with logic to get me to do that. Hasn't happened yet and I certainly don't expect it to."

I'm curious how many of these people weren't actually trying to do anything close to what you believe they were trying to do, but your inflated ego wouldn't let go of the idea of "Yeah, I sure showed him!"

Do I need to tell you a foreign language? "Ich versuche nicht , Gott zu beweisen."

Did that do it?
User avatar
#103 - noblexfenrir (02/16/2015) [-]
"You can't just keep using the "Humans aren't omniscient, therefore we reject everything" line without support and expect me to spontaneously believe in it"

I did, however you responded by saying there is a middle, which you labeled neutrality. I can't help it if you choose to ignore how humans determine reality.

" "It's possible, but not yet founded." "
So it's possible but we don't know, AKA without evidence my claim would hold no merit to be true, therefor you do not believe it. Very simple. If you do not accept my claim then you reject it's validity for whichever reason you want.

" they were trying to do, but your inflated ego wouldn't let go of the idea of "Yeah, I sure showed him!" "
I am actually fairly narcissistic, however that's not why I thought they were doing that, it's actually exactly what they were doing. Again, much better than you currently are. I hold them in much higher regard because they actually had the ability to understand rational points and not try to negate my argument through pointless runarounds trying to negate how non-omniscient beings conceptualize knowledge and truth.

"Did that do it?"
I did read your original comment wrong, and I do apologize for that. However you methodology is the same as if that was your goal, instead of trying to prove god you're trying to prove that there is a stance between disbelief and belief. You're equally wrong, but again different subjects so again, I do apologize.
User avatar
#105 - lolollo (02/16/2015) [-]
And I'm still a little confused on why you think I'm trying to convince you of a God's existence. Do you mind citing that one for me as well? Considering I have numerous quotes of my own that would lead any sane person to believe otherwise?

Literally every single one of them being me saying "I'm not trying to convince you of a God's existence"?
User avatar
#109 - noblexfenrir (02/16/2015) [-]
I said I read your comment wrong, for which I apologized.
User avatar
#112 - lolollo (02/16/2015) [-]
For neutrality, it's precisely how agnostics will express their beliefs. "There's no evidence one way or the other, so believing either for certain would be unfounded, therefore I believe simply in the possibility of either." It's simply not committing to either answer as an absolute truth.
User avatar
#104 - lolollo (02/16/2015) [-]
So then what you're saying is I should believe in what you've said simply because you've said it, and that me ignoring it would be "ignoring the truth"?
User avatar
#107 - noblexfenrir (02/16/2015) [-]
and I lied I didn't realize they were this short so I can quickly reply to these two:

No I'm saying I'm explaining to you why I'm correct, it's your choice whether or not to believe it however I would consider it ignorant to do so. If you could please explain the state of being neutral in a situation of accepting or rejecting a claim and existence of the conclusion of the claim so I can read it tomorrow that would be great.
User avatar
#111 - lolollo (02/16/2015) [-]
So then it would be ignorant for me to disbelieve your claim for which I find no valid evidence for? How odd.
User avatar
#68 - noblexfenrir (02/16/2015) [-]
I wouldn't blame them at all, unless I brought with me things to prove my claims, they have absolutely no reason to believe it.
User avatar
#72 - lolollo (02/16/2015) [-]
So what you're saying is you could very well be denying the truth on something pertaining to the nature of the universe with your well established preconceptions?
User avatar
#74 - noblexfenrir (02/16/2015) [-]
I absolutely could be. Science doesn't claim absolutes, everything is open to being incorrect and build off new information. We are not omniscient creatures, to believe so is idiotic.

I'm inclined to bring up Russell's teapot, there absolutely could be a teapot floating in space somewhere between the earth and mars, however to believe so without evidence would be foolish. Then if 20 years from now we find evidence and can reaffirm that evidence that yes, that teapot does exist, then I will change my belief accordingly.

However, because of this though, we must not lend credence to those making the claim the tea pot DOES exist without evidence, nor to those making the claim the tea pot DOESN'T exist without evidence. (I must make a distinction between a claim of nonexistence and claim of incredulity due to lack of evidence. Those claiming there is no tea pot at all must prove it so, those claiming they simply do not believe the claims of the tea pot believers are simply reverting to the base state of non-belief due to no evidence being provided, however will change to belief if sufficient evidence is given.)
User avatar
#75 - lolollo (02/16/2015) [-]
Welcome to agnosticism, the nonautistic version of atheism.
User avatar
#76 - noblexfenrir (02/16/2015) [-]
Well I am an agnostic, I'm also an atheist.

Agnostic is an admission of ignorance in terms of knowledge. Agnostic means I make no claim of omniscience, gnostic would be making a claim of omniscience.

Atheism/Theism are admissions of belief concerning the claim theists make, Atheism is simply a rejection of this belief, theism is an acceptance of it.

This would make me an agnostic atheist, where if someone claimed no god could possibly ever exist and all supernatural items are false, would be a gnostic atheist.
User avatar
#77 - lolollo (02/16/2015) [-]
So then what's making you so sure of the nonexistence of God in order to be able to so confidently reject the belief?
User avatar
#78 - noblexfenrir (02/16/2015) [-]
I'm not claiming the nonexistence of god, I don't believe in god because there is no good evidence to do so. I reject the claims of theists on the existence of their god because of their refusal to provide adequate evidence or appeal the process of the scientific method to their claims or any evidence they may try to provide.

When evidence is provided that can be tested in such a way, I would change my belief on the subject. As of yet however, this has not happened.
User avatar
#79 - lolollo (02/16/2015) [-]
How is that different from "I reject the idea God exists because you can't prove he exists"? Isn't the rational option to give equal weight to either possibility? What's causing you to one side of the fense more than the other?
User avatar
#80 - noblexfenrir (02/16/2015) [-]
"I reject the idea God exists because you can't prove he exists"
It isn't different than that. If they are claiming a god exists, and cannot prove said god exists, then I reject the idea of his existence.

"Isn't the rational option to give equal weight to either possibility?"
Only between a claim of existence and a claim of non-existence, nonexistence as a result of rejecting the original claim is not an "option", it's a natural state. You do not believe in something you have no good reason to believe in.

User avatar
#81 - lolollo (02/16/2015) [-]
Sorry, meant to say "I reject the idea God doesn't exist because you can't prove he doesn't." And for the second, the assumption you have is that "There's no evidence" is "good reason" to outright reject something. You don't outright reject anything, especially under the guise of a lack of proof, because then you're potentially giving in to the argument from ignorance. What you say is "There's no reason to believe you, though it's possible." After the possibility of something has been proposed to you, you have to then actively go against it to reject it. The "natural state" of disbelief is in not knowing the possibility exists at all.
User avatar
#82 - noblexfenrir (02/16/2015) [-]
I reject it purely from the standpoint of belief, that's what I was trying to imply. I don't reject the possibility of existence, only the absolute claim of such.

Non-belief due to lack of evidence has no responsibility to take into consideration the possibility of an entity that has been proposed, as it is entirely based off a claim another has made.
User avatar
#83 - lolollo (02/16/2015) [-]
Then referring back to the hypothetical, you're living in the past and someone has just proposed the structure of the atom, something your current level of technology can't even hope to note. If you believe in what's been said, you're acting irresponsibly under the guise that there is no reason to believe in the claim aside from someone having told you, despite it being a true anecdote about the nature of the universe. To disbelieve in it outright is also irresponsible as you're factually rejecting a true claim about the nature of the universe, where no matter how scientific you are, you'd be using some form of logic to reject a truthful claim. To lean either which say besides perfectly 50/50 would then also beg the question of why you'd lean towards one option as opposed to the other.
User avatar
#84 - noblexfenrir (02/16/2015) [-]
" If you believe in what's been said, you're acting irresponsibly under the guise that there is no reason to believe in the claim aside from someone having told you"

Yes, it would be ignorant to believe something, regardless if it turns out to be true, without evidence supporting said belief.

"despite it being a true anecdote about the nature of the universe."
Doesn't matter. If I told you there was a giant alien spaceship behind the moon, or better yet, the moon itself is a spaceship, it would be ridiculous to believe me if I can't support that claim. Even if it somehow turns out to be true in the future, if my only response to "how do you know?" is "I just know", then it's a worthless claim.

"To disbelieve in it outright is also irresponsible as you're factually rejecting a true claim about the nature of the universe"

How would I thousands of years ago know it was true? By which test can I confirm these claims a random person is making regardless if they may or may not be true? The fact is, I'm not rejecting the claim of a "true claim about the nature of the universe" I'm rejecting an unsupported claim about the universe, that would be confirmed thousands of years from now, but that is inconsequential to the original unsupported claim.

"you'd be using some form of logic to reject a truthful claim."

A claim I would have absolutely no plausible way of confirming. Nor does the person making the claim.

"To lean either which say besides perfectly 50/50"

There is no such thing as 50/50 to both sides. You either believe the claim being made, or you do not believe it. There is no middle man in those options. There is "I do not currently believe however if given evidence I will believe." but that is still disbelief.
User avatar
#87 - lolollo (02/16/2015) [-]
Also yes, there is middle ground. It's called neutrality/apathy. When someone gives you a claim, you do nothing with it. Instead, you'd much rather have the false confidence to say "No, you're wrong" under the fallacious guise that they haven't proven their point. The only evidence you have that they're right is that simply said it, but you're somehow equating that into the confidence to prove that they're wrong.

Seriously man, have at least an iota of imagination/fluidity with your beliefs.
User avatar
#96 - noblexfenrir (02/16/2015) [-]
"When someone gives you a claim, you do nothing with it."
Neutralist is disbelief in this context. Because as I said, it is directly related to the claim being made. You are incorrectly relating disbelief from the rejection of a claim and making a claim alongside disbelief. If someone makes a claim, and you don't believe it, by default you do not believe it. This doesn't say anything about whether or not you think it's a possibility or if you claim or don't claim it could never happen, it simply means you did not accept the original claim. That's all.

"The only evidence you have that they're right is that simply said it, but you're somehow equating that into the confidence to prove that they're wrong. "

No? The conclusion of the belief is not what I'm saying is wrong, the conclusion is what I am rejecting existence of. I am saying the evidence is wrong if it cannot be proven or tested.

Example:
It's 1725 and you claim the moon is a spaceship. (Star Trek kind, not astronomy kind.)
Your evidence for this is because it is hollow.
1.) The evidence does not correlate with the conclusion.
2.) The evidence is unsupported since you have no way to prove this to me.
Therefor the evidence is wrong and I do not believe your claim. I am not making a counter-claim against your conclusion, I'm simply not accepting your claim of it's existence.

We as humans are not omniscient, non-existence is the default until it is proven to be true. Imagination/fluidity does not make an unsupported claim any more true.
User avatar
#97 - lolollo (02/16/2015) [-]
Nonexistence is the default for you, you're generalizing that to the rest of humanity under...some reason. "Humanity isn't omniscient" doesn't logically lead into "therefore we set nonexistence to our default." Ideas have to come from somewhere, even the first ones pertaining to religion. That doesn't mean religion is true under the Descartian logic of "Effects need equally real causes", it's to note that spontaneity is definitely in our nature, particularly with beliefs.
User avatar
#85 - lolollo (02/16/2015) [-]
"Even if it somehow turns out to be true in the future"

I didn't realize you were in the business of rejecting the truth.
User avatar
#89 - noblexfenrir (02/16/2015) [-]
When the hell did I say that?

Did you even read the context by which that sentence was written? I wrote "even if it somehow turns out to be true in the future" from the standpoint of still being thousands of years in the past.

Someone being told a claim thousands of years ago, has no reason to believe an unsupported claim, even if it turns out to be true in 2015 someone in 325AC obviously wouldn't know that would they?
User avatar
#94 - lolollo (02/16/2015) [-]
Because you continually miss the entire point of the hypothetical, which is that the individual is somehow constructing confidence to make a claim that's against the true nature of the universe via fallacious means. I'm still thinking it's maybe because you somehow get the idea I'm trying to sway you into saying God exists. That's not the point, the point is to note that it's just as fallacious to disbelieve the individual as it is to believe him, and all you've done to combat that is rephrase the Argument from Ignorance fallacy in colorful ways.
#53 - "In the early years of Christianity, Easter was…  [+] (5 new replies) 02/16/2015 on Atheism +5
#55 - onyxleigion (02/16/2015) [-]
Alright. I'll accept that. If it's true then it's true.
#70 - batfacts (02/16/2015) [-]
So does that mean according to your rule you won't celebrate Christmas? As it is not a Christian Holiday? Who is allowed to celebrate it then? Only pagans?
#93 - onyxleigion (02/16/2015) [-]
Using a date that corresponds with another holiday doesn't make Christmas a non-Christian holiday. I don't see how you came to that conclusion.
#92 - onyxleigion (02/16/2015) [-]
Using a date that corresponds with another holiday doesn't make Christmas a non-Christian holiday. I don't see how you came to that conclusion.
#91 - onyxleigion (02/16/2015) [-]
Using a date that corresponds with another holiday doesn't make Christmas a non-Christian holiday. I don't see how you came to that conclusion.