Home Original Content Funny Pictures Funny GIFs YouTube Funny Text Funny Movies Channels Search

hide menu

sovereignsunkown    

Rank #31423 on Subscribers
sovereignsunkown Avatar Level 175 Comments: Soldier Of Funnyjunk
Offline
Send mail to sovereignsunkown Block sovereignsunkown Invite sovereignsunkown to be your friend flag avatar
Last status update:
-
Personal Info
Gender: male
Age: 21
Date Signed Up:6/27/2012
Last Login:2/09/2014
Location:Canada
Funnyjunk Career Stats
Content Thumbs: 105 total,  122 ,  17
Comment Thumbs: 751 total,  950 ,  199
Content Level Progress: 50% (5/10)
Level 10 Content: New Here → Level 11 Content: New Here
Comment Level Progress: 0% (0/10)
Level 175 Comments: Soldier Of Funnyjunk → Level 176 Comments: Soldier Of Funnyjunk
Subscribers:2
Content Views:14546
Total Comments Made:358
FJ Points:906

latest user's comments

#82 - yeah, but when Celtic frost, Venom, Immortal, Gorgoroth and Be…  [+] (1 new reply) 08/17/2012 on Metallica +5
User avatar #85 - yourdadsdad (08/17/2012) [-]
In my opinion, it is good music.
#76 - municipal waste? pansy. THIS is the definition of METAL  [+] (2 new replies) 08/16/2012 on Metallica 0
User avatar #639 - thirdstonefromsun (09/09/2012) [-]
Don't get me wrong, I love me some Atheist but MW was the only good one I had and I didn't feel like going to find one
User avatar #640 - sovereignsunkown (09/09/2012) [-]
fair enough
people just give MW so much more credit than they deserve lol
i'd rather introduce people to a great band they've probably never heard of like Ouroboros or Cynic
#75 - he also deliberately dresses like a gay bat. that's gotta …  [+] (5 new replies) 08/16/2012 on Metallica +2
User avatar #78 - yourdadsdad (08/17/2012) [-]
I'll admit, the whole bands dress style is a bit over the top. They aren't the first bands to have an extreme style.
#98 - anonymous (08/17/2012) [-]
They actually don't dress like that anymore. Andy Biersack's hair is cut short and he and the rest of the band don't wear makeup. They still wear all black but nothing too over the top
User avatar #101 - yourdadsdad (08/17/2012) [-]
I'm aware, the rest of these people don't, so I'm just going to leave them be. But thanks for the help.
#82 - sovereignsunkown (08/17/2012) [-]
yeah, but when Celtic frost, Venom, Immortal, Gorgoroth and Behemoth do it, they don't look like gay bats
they also play actually good music
User avatar #85 - yourdadsdad (08/17/2012) [-]
In my opinion, it is good music.
#12 - as an atheist, i suggest you read the bible immediately. it's … 08/16/2012 on Good Guy Stan Lee +19
#1078 - that's the scientific method. it's deemed false if it can't be…  [+] (1 new reply) 08/15/2012 on Checkmate, Atheists 0
#1079 - thedanishcrown (08/15/2012) [-]
That's why it's religion and not science?
#1076 - according to the scientific method, when something can not be …  [+] (3 new replies) 08/15/2012 on Checkmate, Atheists 0
#1077 - thedanishcrown (08/15/2012) [-]
Why wouldn't I believe you? It could be possible you have that elephant. It could very well be that the elephant exist on a plain that I for some reason cannot see but you can. I can't disprove it, so it's arrogant to make a statement that there is no elephant. Just because you don't understand it yet, doesn't make it less true. Which is why religion is an almost impossible matter to debate.
User avatar #1078 - sovereignsunkown (08/15/2012) [-]
that's the scientific method. it's deemed false if it can't be proven with mathematics or empirical evidence. that's how science works. i can SAY something, but unless i can prove it, it's untrue. that's how science works. i suppose by your logic, science is arrogant.
#1079 - thedanishcrown (08/15/2012) [-]
That's why it's religion and not science?
#1074 - you're missing the point of this comment. it's saying that in …  [+] (5 new replies) 08/15/2012 on Checkmate, Atheists 0
#1075 - thedanishcrown (08/15/2012) [-]
Why can he be presumed non-existent?
User avatar #1076 - sovereignsunkown (08/15/2012) [-]
according to the scientific method, when something can not be proven, it is assumed false until it is proven through empirical evidence. something that cannot be proven or disproven by empirical evidence can be deemed false on principle. example: i have an invisible, mute, ethereal elephant in my room. you don't believe me, but you can't PROVE it isn't there. another example would be russel's teapot.
#1077 - thedanishcrown (08/15/2012) [-]
Why wouldn't I believe you? It could be possible you have that elephant. It could very well be that the elephant exist on a plain that I for some reason cannot see but you can. I can't disprove it, so it's arrogant to make a statement that there is no elephant. Just because you don't understand it yet, doesn't make it less true. Which is why religion is an almost impossible matter to debate.
User avatar #1078 - sovereignsunkown (08/15/2012) [-]
that's the scientific method. it's deemed false if it can't be proven with mathematics or empirical evidence. that's how science works. i can SAY something, but unless i can prove it, it's untrue. that's how science works. i suppose by your logic, science is arrogant.
#1079 - thedanishcrown (08/15/2012) [-]
That's why it's religion and not science?
#115 - "so you see, your mission was successful, you're not lost… 08/15/2012 on from 4chan 0
#118 - i like you already, sir. that's a good philosophy. take the go…  [+] (1 new reply) 08/15/2012 on Buddha 0
User avatar #119 - ultrarobbie (08/15/2012) [-]
And live in denial! WOOOOOOO! ;) And thank you, I like the sound of you too.
#115 - well, essentially, buddhism teaches enlightnenment and happine…  [+] (3 new replies) 08/14/2012 on Buddha 0
User avatar #117 - ultrarobbie (08/14/2012) [-]
I guess every good thing has its downsides, arguably. Maybe that truly is the way to reach enlightenment: Ignore everything that has a bad side?
#118 - sovereignsunkown (08/15/2012) [-]
i like you already, sir. that's a good philosophy. take the good, ignore the bad and craft your own philosophy that fits you.
User avatar #119 - ultrarobbie (08/15/2012) [-]
And live in denial! WOOOOOOO! ;) And thank you, I like the sound of you too.
#109 - i like many tennants of buddhism, but salvation through denial…  [+] (5 new replies) 08/14/2012 on Buddha 0
User avatar #113 - ultrarobbie (08/14/2012) [-]
When you say denial, you mean the state where you are almost ignoring all that is bad? I hardly know much about this religion, although have learnt about it through yoga, meditation and wikipedia - Research. I think that's what it is, isn't it? Enlightenment?
User avatar #115 - sovereignsunkown (08/14/2012) [-]
well, essentially, buddhism teaches enlightnenment and happiness through denying yourself of human desire, such as sexual desire, desire for money, desire for power, ect. it essentially teaches that true happiness comes from ignoring ordinary human impulses. so basically, you can only be truly happy when you no longer desire things that human beings ordinary find pleasurable. other than that though, buddhism is an amazing religion with excellent beliefs. well, aside from the complete lack of empathy it can inspire in certain people...
User avatar #117 - ultrarobbie (08/14/2012) [-]
I guess every good thing has its downsides, arguably. Maybe that truly is the way to reach enlightenment: Ignore everything that has a bad side?
#118 - sovereignsunkown (08/15/2012) [-]
i like you already, sir. that's a good philosophy. take the good, ignore the bad and craft your own philosophy that fits you.
User avatar #119 - ultrarobbie (08/15/2012) [-]
And live in denial! WOOOOOOO! ;) And thank you, I like the sound of you too.
#1062 - THANK YOU. i'm actually really happy my comment didn't turn in… 08/13/2012 on Checkmate, Atheists +1
#1050 - excuse me *the abrahamic god is logically impossible. i also a… 08/13/2012 on Checkmate, Atheists 0
#1049 - but what you also forget is that god still remains an unfalsif…  [+] (2 new replies) 08/13/2012 on Checkmate, Atheists 0
User avatar #1059 - slyve (08/13/2012) [-]
I think the root of that problem is the mentality of most Christians. At least that was the case in my experience. They assume they are right anyway, it is a fact for them, therefore they don't have to prove anything. Unless that changes a real discussion is impossible, you can't argue from that point of view and still call it a rational discussion.

That is the main difference, IMO - While most religious people assume they are right, most atheist are more fact driven, if you could provide evidence that god is actually real, i think most atheists would acknowledge the fact that they were wrong and start looking for a way to integrate this new knowledge in scientific theories, although that scenario is highly improbable. Whereas, if you would provide irrefutable proof that god didn't exist to Christians they would simply state that god does not exist in our realm of consciousness or our reality as we perceive it, therefore our proof canÄt be accurate to begin with.

I really don't want to insult Christians in general here, because i know a lot of Christian are actually really nice people, but some of them are just obnoxious as fuck. Arguing with them is like playing chess with a pigeon, no matter how good you are at chess, at some point the pigeon will just knock everything over, crap on the board and act like it's victorious.

Unfortunately, the same can be said for a lot of Atheists. Some people just love to be dicks, no matter what they believe or not believe.
User avatar #1062 - sovereignsunkown (08/13/2012) [-]
THANK YOU. i'm actually really happy my comment didn't turn into a shitstorm of stupid, my intent was just to point out an inconsistency. you'd be amazed how hard it is to respectfully point something out without someone getting mad
#1048 - i'd have to agree with you, that wording was fairly poor in wh… 08/13/2012 on Checkmate, Atheists 0
#1047 - well, too me, there is much more evidence for the big bang tha…  [+] (2 new replies) 08/13/2012 on Checkmate, Atheists 0
User avatar #1064 - Cambro (08/13/2012) [-]
I do not deny the Big Bang, I think the Big Bang was what God used to create the universe. All studies on the particles that pop in and out of existence are inconclusive so far and still cannot explain how it could craft an entire universe, but perhaps only tiny material objects at a time (if they even can do that, it is all almost blind theory right now about them). The universe is expanding, and that makes sense being energy is being used and dispersed. The expansion is just the mark of a Big Bang type of explosion. Small inconsistencies, like "imperfect" orbits are a moot point in comparison to how perfect everything else is, especially on earth, that sustains life. Peering at those perfections, perhaps the uneven orbits are not imperfections but rather follow some astronomic plan we do not yet know.
I said I would not argue for the Abrahamic God (and I won't because I disagree with many Christians and I have a not unique view of God, but a slightly differing view of God than Christians would profess), so I would like to close with arguing against both the multiverse and omniverse theory. This universe, as evidenced by its expanding and falling apart, is contingent, meaning it had a beginning and an end. Any universe before this one in either theory also would have to be contingently existent, because our universe is here now. Things that have a beginning and an end cannot infinitely go back in time as the title omniverse hints. At some point, there had to be a beginning from nothing. With all the contingent universes, something had to be not contingent (eternal) to create such a chain. Therefore, because we know we exist, God (and eternal being) necessarily exists. The universe (or first universe) had to begin sometime, and at that time God is again the much likelier theory than either of the theories you proposed.
User avatar #1050 - sovereignsunkown (08/13/2012) [-]
excuse me *the abrahamic god is logically impossible. i also appologise, my figure of 10,000 was WAY off, i had gotten confused with a different statistic, the WMAP satellite allowed us to view back to 3.5 billion years. once again, i appologise for my mistake
#636 - oh you :3 08/12/2012 on Checkmate, Atheists 0
#350 - well i think it's great that you have your belief, christianit… 08/12/2012 on Checkmate, Atheists +5
#98 - yeah, and because of the nature of that, it is assumed untrue …  [+] (1 new reply) 08/12/2012 on Checkmate, Atheists +7
#418 - anonymous (08/12/2012) [-]
I believe you! "When one man has delusions its called insanity, when many have delusions its called religion" Lawrence Krauss.
#90 - but what if god IS a vagina?  [+] (2 new replies) 08/12/2012 on Checkmate, Atheists +5
#144 - tolnes (08/12/2012) [-]
#286 - anonymous (08/12/2012) [-]
And that, my friends, is the holy grail's true meaning.

God is a Vagina.
#89 - i'd like to point out that much of this argument is completely…  [+] (45 new replies) 08/12/2012 on Checkmate, Atheists +92
#1073 - thedanishcrown (08/15/2012) [-]
I'm not gonna argue with you or anything, I just want to raise this point: Since you can't prove weather God exist or doesn't exist it's a stupid thing to argue about. It is just as arrogant to assume God doesn't exist as to assume he does. And this goes out with every religion or belief out there.
User avatar #1074 - sovereignsunkown (08/15/2012) [-]
you're missing the point of this comment. it's saying that in a debate setting, god can be presumed non-existant, due to being an unfalsifiable hypothesis. the argument i made doesn't apply outside of a debate setting, because belief is belief. does that clear things up?
#1075 - thedanishcrown (08/15/2012) [-]
Why can he be presumed non-existent?
User avatar #1076 - sovereignsunkown (08/15/2012) [-]
according to the scientific method, when something can not be proven, it is assumed false until it is proven through empirical evidence. something that cannot be proven or disproven by empirical evidence can be deemed false on principle. example: i have an invisible, mute, ethereal elephant in my room. you don't believe me, but you can't PROVE it isn't there. another example would be russel's teapot.
#1077 - thedanishcrown (08/15/2012) [-]
Why wouldn't I believe you? It could be possible you have that elephant. It could very well be that the elephant exist on a plain that I for some reason cannot see but you can. I can't disprove it, so it's arrogant to make a statement that there is no elephant. Just because you don't understand it yet, doesn't make it less true. Which is why religion is an almost impossible matter to debate.
User avatar #1078 - sovereignsunkown (08/15/2012) [-]
that's the scientific method. it's deemed false if it can't be proven with mathematics or empirical evidence. that's how science works. i can SAY something, but unless i can prove it, it's untrue. that's how science works. i suppose by your logic, science is arrogant.
#1079 - thedanishcrown (08/15/2012) [-]
That's why it's religion and not science?
#1007 - anonymous (08/12/2012) [-]
''us so-called "militant atheists" will just leave you alone. we don't have a problem with your belief, if it remains a personal belief.''?
What are we?the gestapo?

-You may believe what you want, but dare to share your beliefs in public and we will kill you.

Thats fucking fascist, and ignorant; Im atheist myself and Im ashamed of all the atheist community because they are so dogmatic, You are all, ALL, fucking materialist, you dont believe in nothing but in empirical evidence, AND MOST OF YOU DONT HAVE ANY SCIENTIFIC FORMATION,imagine this,there is a brilliant scientist who is, for whatever reason, forced to investigate the world from a black and white room via a black and white television monitor. She specializes in the neurophysiology of vision and acquires, let us suppose, all the physical information there is to obtain about what goes on when we see ripe tomatoes, or the sky, and use terms like ‘red’, ‘blue’, and so on. She discovers, for example, just which wavelength combinations from the sky stimulate the retina, and exactly how this produces via the central nervous system the contraction of the vocal cords and expulsion of air from the lungs that results in the uttering of the sentence ‘The sky is blue’. What will happen when Mary is released from her black and white room or is given a color television monitor? she will experience colors, therefore there was some knowledge about human colour vision she did not have prior to her release. Therefore, not all knowledge is physical knowledge.SCIENCE IS ALSO A BELIEF, we are beings who belong to reality, and we are studying reality from inside reality, therefore our knowledge of reality according to the Gödel's incompleteness theorems science will never give us a perfect representation of reality just an aproximation
User avatar #1048 - sovereignsunkown (08/13/2012) [-]
i'd have to agree with you, that wording was fairly poor in what would have been in otherwise intelligent statement. what i perhaps should have said was "we will not be so quick to criticize your beliefs if you do not claim them to be anything more than i personal belief." i appologize for the miscommunication.
you also bring up a good point on Godel's theorums, which is absolutely correct. although, to me, since science is fluid and "corrects" itself, that makes it a more viable belief than claiming something to be true and then sticking with that without looking for any evidence except for pseudophilosophy, but that's just me.
User avatar #1015 - Cambro (08/12/2012) [-]
This pleasantly reminded me of an atheist's quote who chose to remain anonymous. He said in response to the new aggressive "New Atheist" movement that they are fundamentally flawed because one of the keys to atheism is apathy. When an atheist becomes dogmatic and argues offensively (and why would he argue? The religious argue to possibly save souls, what positive do the atheists have to argue for?) they follow the same structures that a religion would, only this religion says "are only 2 rules are that there is no God, and there are no rules."
User avatar #921 - Cambro (08/12/2012) [-]
As both a Christian and a philosophy student, I applaud your statement. However, the God proposition is quite different from an unfalsifiable hypothesis. In the absence of a Creator God, one must assume a Big Bang of sorts. We also don't know if that happened, why it happened, or how it could construct complex orbits and planets so perfectly for life to exist. The Big Bang (and really the only opposition to ID) then, is also an unfalsifiable proposition. Because we exist (and we know we exist for we can think and discuss such complex matters as this), we can assume both cannot be false, but neither can be completely proven. God, therefore, exists on the same plane of plausibility as the Big Bang or multiverse theories. Because both cannot be found to be either true nor false, we must rely on circumstantial evidence. At this point I would go into a fine-tuning argument (the universe and earth, for that matter, are so perfectly created for human existence that this happening by nature or random happenstance is so astronomically low in chances that is it as near mathematically impossible as one could get, thus asserting there must be an all-powerful creator) and you would most probably have to retort that the Abrahamic God is impossible because of logical flaws in his character and blah blah blah. I don't wish to argue you with you about our beliefs, I only wish to share in your logical discourse. Thanks for the intelligent post, stranger.
User avatar #1047 - sovereignsunkown (08/13/2012) [-]
well, too me, there is much more evidence for the big bang than a creator god. i'm actually a student of astrophysics and cosmology, and could tell you right now that there is background radiation found throughout the universe at the exact level predicted by physicists that would have been caused by the big bang, which in turn is a misnomer (the big bang was not a bang, much rather an expansion of a singularity brought on by a quantum event). the currently theory is that the universe is part of a multiverse or omniverse, and was created when a singularity (created in a random quantum event) and expnaded through another quantum effect. we can observe these type of things regularily on a quantum level, where things blink in and out of existence with seemingly no pattern and move in every concievable path. but since i'm not richard feynman i clearly can't claim to understand quantum physics. i'd also like to bring the photos taken by WMAP and other satellite telescopes that have allowed us to observe the universe as it was up to 10,000 years after it's creation. (or so i believe, that number may be off by a wide margin, i haven't read an article regarding the WMAP for a while), and also finally, the overwhelming evidence towards the universe expanding, as discovered by hubble. and as to the fine tuning argument, i would point out that there are several inconsistencies that would point to chance as opposed to creation, such as orbits being imperfect. i feel if something was designed to be "perfect" it would be set exactly perfect and not off on some range. and yes, the abrahamic god is possible. in the chance that there is a deity, it is most likely a pantheistic or einsteinian god. science may only give an approximation of reality, but it's definitely better to trust in theories that can be at least somewhat proven as opposed to just making something up and claiming it to be fact.
User avatar #1064 - Cambro (08/13/2012) [-]
I do not deny the Big Bang, I think the Big Bang was what God used to create the universe. All studies on the particles that pop in and out of existence are inconclusive so far and still cannot explain how it could craft an entire universe, but perhaps only tiny material objects at a time (if they even can do that, it is all almost blind theory right now about them). The universe is expanding, and that makes sense being energy is being used and dispersed. The expansion is just the mark of a Big Bang type of explosion. Small inconsistencies, like "imperfect" orbits are a moot point in comparison to how perfect everything else is, especially on earth, that sustains life. Peering at those perfections, perhaps the uneven orbits are not imperfections but rather follow some astronomic plan we do not yet know.
I said I would not argue for the Abrahamic God (and I won't because I disagree with many Christians and I have a not unique view of God, but a slightly differing view of God than Christians would profess), so I would like to close with arguing against both the multiverse and omniverse theory. This universe, as evidenced by its expanding and falling apart, is contingent, meaning it had a beginning and an end. Any universe before this one in either theory also would have to be contingently existent, because our universe is here now. Things that have a beginning and an end cannot infinitely go back in time as the title omniverse hints. At some point, there had to be a beginning from nothing. With all the contingent universes, something had to be not contingent (eternal) to create such a chain. Therefore, because we know we exist, God (and eternal being) necessarily exists. The universe (or first universe) had to begin sometime, and at that time God is again the much likelier theory than either of the theories you proposed.
User avatar #1050 - sovereignsunkown (08/13/2012) [-]
excuse me *the abrahamic god is logically impossible. i also appologise, my figure of 10,000 was WAY off, i had gotten confused with a different statistic, the WMAP satellite allowed us to view back to 3.5 billion years. once again, i appologise for my mistake
#496 - anonymous (08/12/2012) [-]
It's is a contraction of it is.
Its is possessive.
#636 - sovereignsunkown (08/12/2012) [-]
oh you :3
#388 - anonymous (08/12/2012) [-]
Haha i think this is Bertrand Russell's teapot? I think the problem with religious people is that they believe it is our job to prove god doesn't exist when it clearly is not
User avatar #930 - Cambro (08/12/2012) [-]
You've fallen into a trap, my friend. You assume the existence of God is up to argument, as an atheist would. The "issue" with religious people, as you call it, is that they wish to evangelize to save your soul, NOT for the sake of argument. As an evangelical, it is not their job to prove God to you, it is their job to share their beliefs with you. If they die a believer and God exists, they live in eternal paradise. If they die and God does not exist, they suffer none for it and probably lived and upright moral life anyway, thus making them a good person. Atheists, on the otherhand, have much more to lose in Pascal's Wager. Therefore, this is not a court case where the Believer must put forth evidence, and thus your proposition is wrong. The burden is on the atheist to disprove God because an eternity lost relies on their response. if one, such as a Believer, has nothing to lose, one cannot state that they are burdened to defend their choice or belief, just as someone does not have to defend why they said they believe a flip of a coin will be heads rather than tails.
User avatar #993 - slyve (08/12/2012) [-]
I do not believe in a god of any kind. Nevertheless i try to live my life as best as i possibly can, i help people around me, and i care for people that i like and wouldn't wanna miss in my life.

If i am wrong about, and i go to hell just because i didn't believe in him, in this case i would be glad i didn't believe in such an arrogant god, that busies himself with how much people actually like him / believe in him before he let's them into his paradise, while completely disregarding my accomplishments in life.

I am right about god, and he doesn't exist, i will have lived a happy life, and i will die knowing i made a difference for some of the people i shared my life with.

Enough motivation to live a good life. I don't need god to have morals, i do what i do because i think that's what people should do, help each other. I think it's really not a good argument for Christians to use this moral thing as an argument for god. because, if you are only a good person because you fear punishment from a higher being and someone would actually prove to you that you are wrong, you could do everything without regrets and risks (except law enforcement, that could turn out to be a problem)

I'd rather do good because i want to do it, rather than out of fear of punishment.

But that's just my opinion.
User avatar #1012 - Cambro (08/12/2012) [-]
You misunderstood my argument. I was not saying a Christian should be a Christian because of Pascal's Wager. That is most definitely wrong, and Christians who are good people only because they are Christians are wrong (though I don't know how many of those exist, being hypocritical would be a much more likely outcome). My argument was only to state that the burden of proving God is not on Christians because they have nothing to lose if he does not exist. If you're an American football fan, a good analogy is this: the defense goes offsides, but the quarterback completes a pass for 5 yards. If he completed the pass, why does the coach have to argue about the penalty? They have nothing to lose and nothing to gain. If you want to say that they could lose as an enjoyable life now if they're wrong, that is nothing compared to an eternity in paradise times infinity. They really aren't comparable. And most Christians enjoy their Christian life anyway.
Well, you don't know that God doesn't exist. No one living possibly could be %100 sure of that. I'm ignoring your "arrogant God" comment because it has nothing to do with my argument and it is just attempting to incite a religious debate when all I want is intelligent discourse.
User avatar #1018 - slyve (08/12/2012) [-]
Reached the Char limit. Just wanted to add that by "not inciting a debate" i actually meant that it wasn't my intention to insult or provoke you or to spark a shitstorm - a debate is nothing bad, as long as both parties keep a friendly attitude!

Which could be adapted to this whole thing, if you think about it, since no one can really prove or disprove god today, the only way you could ever convince someone to change their point of view would be if that person is actually willing to do so on their own. Or if you could provide enough arguments that appeal to this one person, since their will be no final answer that satisfies everyone to this question any time soon.

And, of course, the discussion would need to be civilized, no one will change their point of view if the other party begins to be disrespectful or starts throwing insults around.
User avatar #1017 - slyve (08/12/2012) [-]
Well, to be honest, i didn't want to incite a debate, i just can't help myself sometimes and jump into discussions anyway. About the arrogant god comment, that was formulated a little harsh, but i wanted to make sure to get the point across, IF there is a god, i wouldn't want to worship him if he completely ignores the accomplishments of his followers, simply because they didn't belief in him.

And you're right, i can't prove to you that god doesn't exist. But neither can you prove he does.

About the actual point about the proof, i think it depends on the person who takes the active role in the debate, for example, if an atheist talks to a Christians and tries to convince him that god didn't exist, he is the one who needs to provide the proof. But if a Christians tries to convince an Atheist that god does exist, he needs to prove that as well, since no point is provable today, the whole point of this is kinda irrelevant anyway.

Long story short, the burden of proof lies on the shoulders of the person who wants to convince others that his point of view is right. Whether it is a Christian or an Atheist doesn't matter.

I say this because you said, you want to "evangelize the souls" of non-believers, and while i do not doubt that your (as in the majority of Christians) intentions are good, you can't just go around and slap your bible across peoples faces and tell them you will continue to do so until they prove that you're wrong, because you challenge their world view, not the other way around.

Sorry if i came across a little harsh there, i certainly didn't want to incite anything, I'm just trying to share my point of view.
User avatar #1049 - sovereignsunkown (08/13/2012) [-]
but what you also forget is that god still remains an unfalsifiable hypothesis, and i feel it is wrong for all debates on religion to be set as "the atheist must disprove god" which is often the case. debates should much rather be centered on we assume that both possibilities are EQUALLY probable and both sides must set to prove their end true. the way most official religious debates are set up, if the atheist does not disprove the religious debater, the religious debater is deemed the victor, despite not necessarily proving his/her point logically true, and that is where my problems begin.
User avatar #1059 - slyve (08/13/2012) [-]
I think the root of that problem is the mentality of most Christians. At least that was the case in my experience. They assume they are right anyway, it is a fact for them, therefore they don't have to prove anything. Unless that changes a real discussion is impossible, you can't argue from that point of view and still call it a rational discussion.

That is the main difference, IMO - While most religious people assume they are right, most atheist are more fact driven, if you could provide evidence that god is actually real, i think most atheists would acknowledge the fact that they were wrong and start looking for a way to integrate this new knowledge in scientific theories, although that scenario is highly improbable. Whereas, if you would provide irrefutable proof that god didn't exist to Christians they would simply state that god does not exist in our realm of consciousness or our reality as we perceive it, therefore our proof canÄt be accurate to begin with.

I really don't want to insult Christians in general here, because i know a lot of Christian are actually really nice people, but some of them are just obnoxious as fuck. Arguing with them is like playing chess with a pigeon, no matter how good you are at chess, at some point the pigeon will just knock everything over, crap on the board and act like it's victorious.

Unfortunately, the same can be said for a lot of Atheists. Some people just love to be dicks, no matter what they believe or not believe.
User avatar #1062 - sovereignsunkown (08/13/2012) [-]
THANK YOU. i'm actually really happy my comment didn't turn into a shitstorm of stupid, my intent was just to point out an inconsistency. you'd be amazed how hard it is to respectfully point something out without someone getting mad
User avatar #293 - bateking (08/12/2012) [-]
Only problem is that a shitload of christians I personally know have a hard time claiming their beliefs are for just themselves, they have a way of projecting their crap and trying to save me
User avatar #910 - msvegeta (08/12/2012) [-]
Well, if I was religious, I would want to save my atheist friends too I guess. Can you imagine how weird it must be to believe a friend is going to burn in hell for eternity? I'd want to stop that from happening
User avatar #916 - bateking (08/12/2012) [-]
Even after the friend has told you oh so many times to fuck off
User avatar #922 - msvegeta (08/12/2012) [-]
Yeah, it sucks. It hasn't happened to me much, because I debate competitively, and I can handle that struggle well. Plus I'm living in a pretty liberal place.
User avatar #924 - bateking (08/12/2012) [-]
Yeah, im still here with my parents, so no luck for now lol
User avatar #272 - danniegurl (08/12/2012) [-]
Well, I am a Christian and one who doesn't thump a bible or try to argue at every turn that my religion is correct.
I've had many friends that were some other religion or just atheist.
That said, almost everyone I've known in real life doesn't criticize me for my religion. Yet almost every atheist on the Internet has done so, regardless of anything else I've said.
#883 - anonymous (08/12/2012) [-]
Why is she being thumbed down(aside from that username)? She only said something true.
User avatar #1025 - danniegurl (08/12/2012) [-]
Lol, I came up with my username in fifth grade. I just use it for everything because it's easy to remember and it's never taken by someone else.
#856 - anonymous (08/12/2012) [-]
Me too. My atheist friends are really nice people. The atheists you speak of are twelve year olds who think being an atheist makes them cool. Don't take anything they say to be of weight.
#350 - sovereignsunkown (08/12/2012) [-]
well i think it's great that you have your belief, christianity has many benefits if taken as a person philosophy and interpretted to better yourself as opposed to restrict others. my issues arise when people
a)deny others rights based on religion
b)claim their belief as absolute truth
c)deny proven scientific fact in the name of belief
personal religion is wonderful for those who don't misuse it.
User avatar #123 - ninjaspartan (08/12/2012) [-]
Try telling that to every atheist here with a "personal" vendetta to disprove god with their twelve year old logic because they think religion is destroying society just because Christianity doesn't support homosexuality.
#415 - anonymous (08/12/2012) [-]
Its not just Christianity, its every Abrahamic religion in my opinion. Jewish with their unnecessary mutilations of their young, Roman Catholics with their banning of condoms causing AIDS numbers to increase in Africa, Some Protestant believers because of their blatant homophobic beliefs (which most religions believe in i suppose) and most definitely Muslims with their clearly mistreatment of women as second class citizens, Death sentences for committing Apostasy etc the list goes on. To quote Shakespeare "To guild refined gold, to paint the lilly, to throw perfume on the violet, to smooth the ice or with taper-light To seek the beauteous eye of heaven to garnish, Is wasteful and ridiculous excess" And i hope you can understand where im coming from
User avatar #996 - xiik (08/12/2012) [-]
And that's were postmodern religion comes in, where people believe in a God but not the stupidly rigid rules that the Old Testament sets.

And Jesus did say that the most important rules are;
Love God with all your heart and body, and love your neighbour as such, for there is no more important thing.

Not religious, just a theology student.
User avatar #461 - ninjaspartan (08/12/2012) [-]
... Kind of?
#122 - bennynjunk (08/12/2012) [-]
Never seen an atheist post that didn't say something along the lines of "can't we all just get along" get this many thumbs up here.
User avatar #124 - ninjaspartan (08/12/2012) [-]
You don't look at anti-religion posts very often, do ya?
User avatar #97 - lcarnage (08/12/2012) [-]
You could've just said it can't be proven or disproven.
User avatar #98 - sovereignsunkown (08/12/2012) [-]
yeah, and because of the nature of that, it is assumed untrue if not proven true, and not the other way around
example II: i have a silent, invisible, ethereal elephant beside me that only i can see.
you can't prove it's not there, but you can't prove it is. you assume automatically that i'm bullshitting you.
see how this works?
#418 - anonymous (08/12/2012) [-]
I believe you! "When one man has delusions its called insanity, when many have delusions its called religion" Lawrence Krauss.
User avatar #95 - kingreaver (08/12/2012) [-]
If I could give you medals I would.
#4 - i go to a canadian public school and we're not allowed to teac… 08/08/2012 on Mitt Romney is a Dildo 0
#60 - one of the deadliest fighters i know is a 5'2 women. i don't r… 08/01/2012 on fucking woman 0
#31 - did someone say "long hair"? 07/31/2012 on sorry people with curly hair +5
#250 - one current theory involves a quantum event. sometimes things … 07/29/2012 on I dare you -1

Comments(0):

 

Show All Replies Show Shortcuts
Per page:
Order:
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
No comments!
 Friends (0)