Stuckpixel: wow, a lot of these uploads are funny, but I think I'll approve the ones that will start an Internet flame war instead. That sounds like a great idea
@Tactical Bagel, Flamewarpics
@Tactical Bagel, everything changed when the fire meme nation attacked
@Tactical Bagel, Nope *tosses bucket of water on the pic*
@Tactical Bagel, I think you're giving them too much credit
@Tactical Bagel, to be honest, it does sound like a great idea. It makes for amazing entertainment most of the time.
Not quite accurate, but funny nonetheless
@TheAgent, it's fairly accurate.
@HentaiFan, I HAVE A MINOR IN BIBLICAL STUDIES!! THIS IS NOT FULLY ACCURATE! Though the way most Christians teach it would seem so. Have a lovely day, I actually don't want to start an argument :/
@HentaiFan, well I don't have a minor I did go to catholic school for most of my life (agnostic now), if you're going by the bible this isn't super accurate. The Catholic Church however has kind of adopted this mentality since the dark ages
@Lord Commander Snow, Catholic priests have ALL the minors
@TheAgent, how is this not accurate, I think they got it dead on
@benderama, don't use logic on religion, if it made sense you wouldn't need faith.
@frodo from 349, I don't need faith
@benderama, you probably do need faith, everyone needs faith. You need faith that your car won't malfunction and hurdle you off the road at 60 miles an hour. If you didn't have faith you'd live a very sad sad life...
@benderama, faith isn't uniquely religious
@Snarfel Burger, actually, that is where you're wrong. The analogy with the car doesn't make sense. It doesn't require faith to asses whether or not your car will kill you. Statistics, regular maintenance, inspection of the tires can reduce your changes of your car malfunctioning to the point it kills you. I can honestly say that I live without faith. I try to believe nothing, he who makes the claim has the burden of proof.
@benderama, what I said was that faith is required to believe something that doesn't make sense. Or else it wouldn't be called faith...makes sense? The use of the word 'need' was a poor choice.
@frodo from 349, i've never heard of faith being necessarily belief in something that "doesn't make sense". Being generous, I would probably say faith means to trust in something that is unseen. So in my analogy of the car, you don't possess the ability of hindsight, or knowing for sure your car won't kill you, you just assume the car won't kill you because of probability. That doesn't get rid of the faith aspect. You still have faith in your mechanic, that they did a good job on your car, you still have faith that the statistics are accurate, and you still have faith that your car won't run you off the road. Your assumption that your car is unlikely to kill you, might he based on probability but all assumptions still have faith involved. Precisely because we can not see the future. When a scientist makes an educated guess and performs an experiment, he still has faith in the potential outcome because of his preparations. Religious people have faith in an unseen God because by their
@frodo from 349, assumptions. Their is a high probability that he exist.
@frodo from 349, you say that you try and believe in nothing. The burden of proof is better applied to court cases and criminology. I would say there is a burden of "disproof" when you engage in the endless debate of the existence of God. Take the "red eagle theory" as an example. Say their are two men arguing over the existence of red eagles. The man with the burden of disproof would have to scour the entire universe, looking in every nook and cranny to make sure he didn't miss a red eagle. In criminology we also say "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" The same can be applied to the existence of something. I don't see how someone can try to believe in nothing...
@Snarfel Burger, I'm a mechanic, so I know my car is fine, and I do live a very sad life
@benderama, sorry you live a sad life, i know what would make it less sad but I know you wouldn't believe me, haha.
Its funny that you say you "know" your car is fine. It seems usually the people who claim they have "no faith" are the same people who don't believe in "objective truths" but you're saying you "know" something to be true, i.e. Your car is fine.
@Snarfel Burger, your red eagle analogy is spot on! You are basically making my point. The default position is: "there is no red eagle, unless there is proof of its existence". There is no reason to go and look for it without strong indications of its existence. It would not be logical to first assume, out of the blue, that there is a red eagle and then to go and look for it. Now, there is no indication there is a god, there is however proof that the god as displayed in the bible does not exist (or he exists and the stories are untrue). Bottom line, Unless there are indications of the existence of a higher power, the logical way of thinking is to assume there is none.
@frodo from 349, the point of the "red eagle theory" is on the burden of proof. One man has to PROVE there are red eagles and one man has to PROVE there are not. The man that must prove the existence of red eagles need only find one, where the man that must disprove their existence would have to look everywhere to be sure he did not miss one. The burden is on the one who has to prove something does not exist at all. Now this is more appropriate with the existence of God because the idea of him was not something asserted "out of the blue". Whether we believe their credibility or not, historical "witnesses" claim observable evidence. So its not like a random goon saying "oh, red eagles exist because you can't look everywhere to prove they don't" We can get into all sorts of other discussions if I pushed back on the argument that there is "proof that the god, as displayed in the bible, does not exist" because I would disagree with that statement. If evidence was as resounding as some are
@frodo from 349, convinced. Then atheism would no longer be the minority in the world.
@Snarfel Burger, why is the burden of proof on the non-believer?
@Sexy Alpaca, read all I wrote. I was asserting that they have a unique burden of "disproof". It's not the same as a court case where a defendant is innocent until proven guilty and a prosecutor is tasked with proving guilt. The burden of proof, i think is reserved and coined for these circumstances. But in a theological debate, both parties have a degree of burden due to the fact they're both trying to prove something. Existence or non-existence...
@Snarfel Burger, atheism is not about disproving a god(s), it is the non-belief in a god(s). Most atheists who have thought about the existence of a god(s) claim that there is no scientific evidence to justify the belief in a god(s). This is the crux (pardon the pun) for many atheists and skeptics; a claim must be backed up with evidence to be considered true.
@Liefarikson, I MAJORED IN BIBLICAL STUDIES and I'm going to remove myself from the conversation because it's late and I just wanna laugh.
@Sexy Alpaca, precisely, and the claim that "there is no God", cannot be backed up with evidence.
@Snarfel Burger, you're right that claiming to know the existence or non-existence cannot be backed up with evidence currently. Identifying as an atheist means that at the time of identification one does not believe in the existence of a deity. Skeptics consider everything without evidence to be false, which can be applied to the existence of a god(s). The belief that Phenomenon X does not exist is the default position for skeptics until proper evidence is presented that Phenomenon X does exist or is likely to exist.
@Sexy Alpaca, but because there is no reason to believe there is a god and there is also no reason to believe that there is not a god, then why would the skeptics "default" position be there is no god. Everything said for one side can be said for the other. Theist can be considered skeptics when pertaining to the absence of God. I. E. "The majority of humanity believes in a higher power, the (absence of a deity = phenomenon X). Until proper evidence is presented that phenomenon X does exist or is likely to exist it is my skeptical default position that phenomenon X does not exist/ is not true".
@Snarfel Burger, a god(s) either exist or they do not exist, just like everything conceivable. The dichotomy between the hypothesis and null hypothesis is that the hypothesis is always positive for a given phenomenon, whereas the null hypothesis is always the negative for a given phenomenon. Turning a null hypothesis into a hypothesis is counterintuitive to the evidence-based way of thinking.
You said yourself that it is much more difficult to find evidence to completely disprove a hypothesis than it is to prove a hypothesis. This is the basis for skepticism because it allows flexibility. A skeptic can easily move from favoring the null hypothesis to favoring the hypothesis with a sufficient amount of evidence, but working the other way is much more difficult because in some cases it implies believing in something until the entire universe is scanned for a lack of evidence to the hypothesis.
@Sexy Alpaca, also, there have been numerous other gods in history. A theist has to use the same reasoning to defend his non-believe in all the other gods. It is astonishing that they don't seem to do this when it comes to the god of their parents.
@Snarfel Burger, I'll give you an example to show the error in your reasoning. Imagine your neighbor is at your front door and tells you an alien spaceship has landed in his backyard. As anyone, you would find that a huge claim, hard to believe. Because that claim is outrageously strange, prior believing it, you would need proof! You go and check his backyard and there is no spaceship, no marks, nothing. So you choose, rightfully, not to believe his claim. Now he says: 'but you can't proof it wasn't here earlier!' That is how you sound making the 'you can't proof God doesn't exist' argument...
@Snarfel Burger, about your argument that it wasn't out of the blue: the whole foundations of the major religions are from ancient tribes that didn't know where the sun went at night. The bible would be a great historical document to study how these people lived, had it not been re-edited and wrongly translated countless times...
@frodo from 349, your alien abduction analogy still does not deal with the burden I would have if I wanted to disprove this person's experience. Your analogy attempts to make me see something absurd from the perspective of an atheist who sees a god as an absurd belief. As silly as it may sound I still would not have the ability to disprove the alien abduction. How likely I believe something is or is not, does not change the likelihood of that something existing. The same can be said for the "other gods" statement you made. There are other reasons someone may be convinced in their specific god (which is a different discussion entirely) such as personal experience, revelation, conviction, holy texts, etc. But the debate is whether a higher power can be proven or disproven. Not which higher power exist. Trying to convince someone that a god must exist is not the same as trying to convince them "my god exist"
@Sexy Alpaca, you make a good point, but the hypothesis can still be changed with the wordage you use. Would it be accurate to say an atheist might make the hypothesis "the universe exists and functions without the influence of a designer" where the null hypothesis would be the negative or what most people and cultures accept as the "default" which would be, "the universe must have a designer" the thought process of atheism is more recent in history than theism.
@Snarfel Burger, saying that the universe functions without the influence of a designer is a null hypothesis because it states that a phenomenon (a designer) does not exist
Someone hasn't gotten past elementary Sunday school...
"From what I'm going to do to you if this is reposted again"
Moms be like
@Fluffle Puff, the mob be like
It's 2016 people. We should not be following stories made up in the dark ages to control the populace
Me: Wow so funny memes I try to upload get rejected but extremely offensive ones can just get on here like that.
Stuckpixel: You are my property