File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
im looking for a .gif of the different ways of the end of the world.

plus the .gif that shows the earth compared to the sun and other stars in the universe. please thanks
>> Anonymous
ytmnd.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
Here the end of the world GIF, dont have the other one though
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
It's scary how insignificant we are. How petty and small we are, and how little we matter to the universe.

And one person, just one person....so petty and inferior....

It's a scary thought....
>> Anonymous
So true.

Sigh, and there's a porn thread under this one.
>> Anonymous
thanks guys
>> Anonymous
>>877834
yea but even on how great we are on this planet something just as small and insignificant exists in vast numbers along and inside us, they have no intelligence and the amound of didstance between me and you right now for them is larger than the universe its self, but still they are everywhere, if they can do it, what's to say we can't?
>> Anonymous
>>877813

EPIC.
>> Anonymous
>>877813
holy fuck, its bigger than the solar system, there could be millions of planets orbiting that massive fucken thing, other stars even
>> Anonymous
http://atinyglimpse.ytmnd.com

For further mindfuckery on how small we are.
>> gay Anonymous
Humans are not the supreme moral beings in the universe. God is, and he’ll decide when humanity ends.
Existential atheism is the biggest load of emo crap to ever be shat out the gigantic gaping anus of psuedo-intellectual liberal douche baggery. Climate change, environmental toxins, etc. aren’t fit to suck the Four Riders’ balls.
That doesn’t mean you shouldn’t be scared however, since supervolcano and rogue black hole are in your kitchen (right now) eating all your food. Enjoy the apocalypse known as Chinese, take-out induced diarrhea.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> man-bear-pig Anonymous
...I'm totally cereal.
>> Anonymous
>>878096
HA!
>> Anonymous
Good thing god isn't real, christfag.
>> cry more Anonymous
>>878101
You just feel threatened.
>> Anonymous
>>878101

Where did the universe come from then?
>> Anonymous
there is no god, fuck of christfags
>> Anonymous
>>878101
>>878114
same fag

Are you going to cry if people don't think like you?
>> Anonymous
>>878118

it's called being a different person

I'm crying if anything at how theists like you hold back the human race; if there was no religion the world would be a better place.

I bet you don't believe evolution either
>> Anonymous
Atheists pretend to have all the answers, but they can’t even explain the origin of the universe itself. Also notice how they spend far more time and energy attempting to cut down Christianity than they do progressing in their own school of thought? Atheists need people to think like them as a confirmation of their worldview, because inwardly they’re worried that they might be wrong. It’s just a sad cry for help. Here’s a tip: God will acknowledge your plea if you pledge fealty to him.
>> Anonymous
>>878128
Where did the universe come from then? Seriously, I challange you to answer this question using your OWN beliefs, and without bashing religion. Hmmmm? I'm waiting....
>> Anonymous
>>878128
Atheism is a religion, retard.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
I'M A CHRISTFAG AND I BELIEVE IN JESUS HURRR
>> Anonymous
>>878141

Just because atheists don't know how the universe was created doesn't mean they're wrong. Idiot

Atheists are trying to cut down Christianity (and succeeding, look how many non-religious people there are now compared to 50 years ago) because they are just sun-worshipers, oblivious to all rational logic and clinging on to their hopes of a god and a nice peaceful heaven. Christianity is a disease
>> Anonymous
>>878148

No it isn't you idiot
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
BABYFUCK
>> Anonymous
>>878149

See, that’s all you can do. You don’t like Christianity, but you don’t have any answers of your own. Thanks for proving my point.
>> Anonymous
When your entire belief system consists of how you don’t like Christians or believe in God, your beliefs are still based on God. What kind of simpleton doesn’t realize that?
>> Anonymous
For any passive lurkers, notice how no atheist can answer this (>>878113) simple question. All they can do is insult.
>> Anonymous
>>878153
Atheism is totally a religion. Also atheists are worse that anyone for pushing their beliefs on others.
>> Anonymous
does darkness exist
answer no darkness is simply a term used to describe when there is no light.
As the term cold which is simply the non existence of heat.
If you look at it like that then people are entitled to have faith in whatever they beleive so to you maybe god doesnt exist but others he/they do. and science can never disprove this like they cant explain cold or darkness because they are simply terms to describe non existense
>> Anonymous
>>878113

we're not sure because we can't prove anything. Which is a hell of a lot more intelligent than "I can't think how it came to be, so obviously an invisible all powerful being, of which I have no direct experience with, or proof of, must have done it."

Just because non religious folk don't have an answer they can agree on doesn't mean you're any better, or right. It just means you're more childish and stupid.
>> Anonymous
>>878161

And Christians never do that do they?

>>878159

The universe was created by the big bang, I take it they don't teach you that in your redneck school. Maybe you should go read up on it
>> Anonymous
>>878153
As a life-long student of world religions, cultures, and philosophies, I am certain that Atheism is, in fact, a religion.

Just because it refutes the possibility of the existence of a deity, that does not change the nature of Atheism as a religion.

>>878151
The majority of those "non-believers" you claim are not in your camp. They belong, in fact if not by claim, to the Agnostic camp - they do not actively refute the existence of a deity, they simply do not know (and in most cases do not care) whether he/she/it/they exists or not.

Their position is better than the Atheist one, though, from a purely rational standpoint. Science is not in the business of dealing in absolutes; absolutely confirming OR denying anything is unscientific. This includes deities - the scientific, and rational, response to "Is there a god?" is "I do not know, we have yet to find any evidence for or against his/her/its existence."

Thus, Atheism is an irrational viewpoint. To cling to it as a philosophy despite this does, in fact, equate it as a religion.

Please consider your viewpoints more carefully.
>> Anonymous
well yeah the whole darkness thing was about god not being able to be disproved and so if people beileve in him (which i do) then so be it and fair enough as noone can discount that there isnt a god
>> Anonymous
>>878169
The Big Bang:
"A microball of superdense matter goes boom, shit happens, here we are."

Okay, that automatically raises two questions:
1. Where did this ball of superdense matter, or the space in which it existed, come from?
2. What was the factor that caused its detonation?
>> Anonymous
The reason why Atheists can’t prove their beliefs is because even natural law dictates that you can’t (ever) get something from nothing. This begs the question: If the universe’s origin is the ‘big bang‘, what is the big bang’s origin? In other words circumstance of the big bang aside, where did the actual components necessary for the event come from? Absolute beginnings (i.e.: getting something from nothing) don’t fit within natural law, and are therefore supernatural. This is simple logic and doesn’t require any sort of religious stance.
>> Anonymous
>>878174
Humans (or an alien race) from the far future travelled back in time to see how the universe started. The energy released from such a huge jump in time started the universe.

This makes more sense to me than "lol God did it", because you can just say "Where did God come from". Unless God is a time traveller also.


TIME IS AN INFINITE LOOP LOL
>> Anonymous
>>878177
Look up a term called "Entropy." That theory of yours doesn't hold water.
>> Anonymous
>>878177
There would have had to have been someplace for those magical time-traveling aliens of yours to end up in. Obviously, the universe existed before they got to the "beginning", so their arrival clearly did not start the universe.

Try harder.
>> Anonymous
>>878179
I was telling a story of time travelling aliens jump starting the big bang. I don't care about logic.

Fuck your entropy. Plus all those laws are based on knowledge as we have it now. WHO KNOWS WHAT WE'LL KNOW IN THE FUTURE.

It's the future. We may find a way to get more energy out of something than it actually contains. Who knows. It's the future. You can't even say "lol no" because we don't know. Unless you wanna come to the future with me... which is technically possible. We can't come back though.
>> Anonymous
>>878183
And in the future, we may find proof that God exists.

Your idea and mine have equal value in scientific terms, which is to say, none.
>> Anonymous
>>878174
I really hope you do understand that the whole big bang theory isn't something directly and solely connected to atheism as a philosophy, but rather stands as among the more "respected" thoughts regarded any point of origin for matter in the universe, according to the _scientific community_ as a whole.

And atheism nor agnosticism have no direct connection either to science or logic by virtue of their existance, but stand as their own philosophies regarding the subject of religion, and from there people reason using science and raw logic.

And why would atheism be a religion while agnosticism is "in the free"? Many atheists take the standpoint of the existance of the gods as they are popularily depicted being false delusions due to lack of knowledge and proof, just like the average person take the existance of unicorns and pixies as directly _false_ due to lack of any significant proof.
>> Anonymous
>>878185

See? You're off on some crazy "everyone is against me" religion rant again. I never even suggested God doesn't exist, I was just pointing out the stupidity of all these "how the universe started" theories, because all of them make about as much sense as time travelling aliens.


Anyway, let's go to the future. It's already been done, on small scale.
>> Anonymous
>>878187
Agnosticism is "in the free" because it operates purely on logic, and non-exclusion of facts presented. It isn't a religion because it acts as a "default state" before religion is introduced.

>>878188
See, here, you're being defensive over me taking the same position as you. "Time-traveling aliens started the universe, time = infinite loop" and "God did it" have pretty much the same value to science. Like I said, it was a zero value.

You made a wild-assed assertion to demonstrate absurdity. I made a similarly wild-assed assertion on similar grounds, albeit from a side apparently (judging by your reaction) opposed to your own by its wording. How does that suddenly make mine a rant from persecuted religion?

As for time-travel, I see what you did there. Being aware of the passing of time from past to present to future is, in itself, time travel in a linear, small-scale fashion. Been there, done that.
>> Anonymous
>>878093

Pro tip god is a lie, like cake is a lie
>> Anonymous
I believe in God because I observe what appears to be uniform design in all creation. Also, despite all the horrors of the world, goodness always prevails. Goodness is a truly awesome concept that can’t simply be chalked up to survival instinct (i.e.: protecting the herd) since it so often involves self sacrifice (which usually conflicts with instinct). It also can’t be explained as a mere chemical attachment to one’s companions, family or race, since people often risk their lives for complete strangers (or even animals for that matter). The survival of the fittest theme prevalent in evolution theory also doesn’t account for the fact that several sentient races could evolve and be equally fit in their own right while looking extremely different in terms of superficial aesthetics. Yet there is only one sentient race. You could argue the existence of aliens, but still, why is there only one sentient race here? There’s just too much order (as opposed to chaos) in existence for it not to be governed by a powerful will and a singular vision. That’s just what I think.
>> Anonymous
>>878194
Before I press this further, I'd like to know your definition what makes something a religion, because as it is now, I get the feeling that it is pretty much just when someone has a standpoint or view that is based on belief rather than proof. If that is all it is, the pandering over name-brand products some people have due to the belief that they are better than non-brand products could be a called a religion.

Also, I would like you go further into just _why_ agnosticism according to you works on 100% logic, with me once again using the example of the unicorn. Is there still that "maybe, maybe not" stance regarding this, or is the existance of a divine being the only thing that is "logically" plausible?
>> Anonymous
Just what does "God did it" answer anyway? That doesn't tell you anything, it doesn't explain anything, it's a completely useless statement. You don't know how or why God did it, so what exactly have you learned?
If you just explain away things you don't know as God doing it, you won't feel the need to pursue knowledge about them, and that's why religion is a science - no, a knowledge-stopper.

And the only reason why Atheists are up in arms about Christians is because they constantly make misstatements of fact. If you believe in God, fine, nobody can prove you wrong. But if you start bringing in observations of the real world around us to prove your god, those observations can be scrutinized, and so far not one of those observations in any way supports the existence of an omniscient, omnipotent all-creator who completely at random decides to allow or disallow your wishes to come true.

It's a needless, hindering concept.

</rant>
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
not the end of the world, but features a world ending device.
>> Anonymous
>>878201
Sentience does not imply direct success in a naturalist point of view. The most "successful"
creatures on earth are things like rats and cockroaches, and "survival of the fittest" is more or less "survival of the most adaptable". Evolution isn't chaos, it is order by virtue of nature rather than a deity.

Morality is a solely human concept, and with our minds as they are, we can say "fuck you" to our instincts if and whenever we feel like it. But a single look to nature sure as hell doesn't speak volumes for a "Benevolent Watcher" type of God, and the entire history of humanity doesn't either.
>> time travel Anonymous
Time travel will never exist and here’s why:
If at ANY point in the infinite future anyone uses time travel to go back it time and destroy existence, we would cease to exist. We would feel the effects immediately by virtue of the fact that the present flows from the past. The fact the we are still here (or ever existed) negates the possibility of time travel… forever.
>> Anonymous
>>878211
"never" is just "reven" spelled backwards
>> Anonymous
>>878203
I call it a religion if it satisfies the following criteria:
1. Relies on personal belief before valid logic and/or fact. This does not preclude the practice or acceptance of such within the religion, or by its practitioners; it merely supposes the tenets of the belief system to be true a priori of such factors.
In short, a religion is founded on belief, and more secular rationality takes a backseat.
2. Is a worldview similarly shared by a number of people.
3. Provides a method of dealing with the existence (this includes denial) of supernatural concepts.

Agnosticism is a belief system, but not a religion. This is because it, as its name suggests, is a system whereby the person does not accept the existence OR the nonexistence of deity without scientific evidence. In effect, it says the person has not come to a conclusion due to insufficient data.
By contrast:
1. All the world's theistic religions take the leap of faith in believing in some deity without having clear evidence of such.
2. Atheism takes the leap in believing that deity does NOT exist, also without having clear evidence of such.

Thus, Agnostic belief is simple logic, not religion, while Atheism is a religion.
>> Anonymous
>>878194
While I agree on the fact that Agnosticism is not a "religion".
It is not the default stage.
Would you like for me to elaborate?
>> Anonymous
>>878218
>while Atheism is a religion.
No.
Atheism is a belief like Theism
and disbelief like Agnosticism

Question before I push on:
Do you think Theism as a religion?
>> Anonymous
>>878218
And the unicorn?
>> Anonymous
>>878219
Referring to Agnosticism as a "default stage" was a figure of speech, not intended to imply a direct correlation with "agnostos" - simple ignorance of the subject - but I would be interested in seeing your reasoning on the subject.
>> Anonymous
>>878207
Evil is a necessary component of choice. If we had not ability to do evil (because God didn’t allow it to exist) than good wouldn’t really be good and we would just be puppets. God wants us to be free. When given every opportunity to do evil, you still choose to do good of your own volition, that is what pleases God. Think about it- If you were god wouldn’t that please you? If you really like a girl, wouldn’t you want her to like you back, and if so, wouldn’t you want it to be her choice rather than forcing her? It’s the same thing. This type of logic (what you do if you where God) also provides a fairly good rational for existence. In other words- If you were God would you use your power or do nothing (forever), and if you did use your power, what would you affect with it? You need to created something to affect.
>> Anonymous
>>878218
That's pretty cheap considering the various behaviours and traditions of every religion in the world. And in pops atheism, that has absolutely none of those.

It all feels like a bunch of butthurt christians and confrontational agnostics who're balancing the blade as it is trying to "lower" any naysayers to the same level so that their argument seems all the weaker.
>> Guy !3GqYIJ3Obs
>>878223
*Ahem*

Agnosticism...
is not a state of ignorance about God
but a state of ignorance of the existence of God
Or at least one of its definition is.

Soft Atheism is the "default stage" or ignorance about God/Deities/etc.

However...
Soft Agnosticism is, what you can also call as the "default stage".
>> Anonymous
>>878222
The unicorn is a bad example of ’something that requires faith’. It’s just a horse with a horn on its head. I don’t think that’s entirely implausible, and 9 out of 10 cows agree.
>> Anonymous
Let's underestimate and say there's been 200 major religions during the past. Therefore, you could make the argument that believing in a particular deity but thinking the other 199 are misguided might seem a bit silly.

Probability maths >>> religion
>> Anonymous
>>878222
Not yet confirmed, and most circumstancial fossil evidence lends its weight against the existence of unicorns, but in theory, they might exist.
All the magic and myth associated with them is not a thing science is concerned with.

>>878221
Theism is a religion in my view, yes, albeit a broad-scoped and vague one. It's a system of belief with many subdivisions attributed to many different religions. It presupposes the existence of a deity, a priori of verifiable fact, and thus fulfills the explanation of supernature.
>> Guy !3GqYIJ3Obs
>>878225
The definition of religion is a picky subject indeed...

I mean look at Buddhism.
Some call it Atheist religion
Some call it a teaching not a religion
>> Anonymous
>>878225
and yet you're the only one throwing a fit...
>> Anonymous
>>878224
>if you were god
If I were God(in the classic judeo-christian sense), I wouldn't need to arbitrarily create some lesser beings only to slam disease, pain, death, natural disasters, age, and whatnot nasties on them for whatever reason I had in mind.

The thought of God being benevolent falls pretty damn hard when he creates all evil in existance to punish the creations he himself made. Also, if you are the sort that believes in Hell, then I'll ask you this: Is it "the right thing to do" to punish someone in an infinite amount of time for something he did in a finite amount of time?
>> time travel GaZ
"Time travel will never exist and here’s why:
If at ANY point in the infinite future anyone uses time travel to go back it time and destroy existence, we would cease to exist. We would feel the effects immediately by virtue of the fact that the present flows from the past. The fact the we are still here (or ever existed) negates the possibility of time travel… forever."

2 huge holes in that logic:

1) how does traveling time & the ability to destroy existence relate? u give us human germs way too much credit.

2) even if possible, maybe no one, in any possible future existence, is such a moron as to want to do such a thing.

FACE.
>> Guy !3GqYIJ3Obs
>>878234
>logic
Destroy it
>> Anonymous
>>878231
Ya but that’s just semantics. Atheism is a religion because it parallels the literal definition. Not liking it doesn’t make false.
>> Anonymous
>>878233
That assumes that all views of Hell are of the "eternal torment" flavor. Some prefer the "Big Delete Button" version, some prefer the "torment for awhile, then annihilate" view.
>> Anonymous
>>878229
There hasn’t been 200 ’MAJOR’ religions in human history. No one her is talking about bazaar cults. We’re talking about a mere handful of very similar, very persistent faiths.
>> Anonymous
>>878238
If you follow the teachings rather than the modernized "happy feely"-version that has formed where God is more or less a largey neutral "The Creator of All Things" rather than old view of him as "The Great Judge and Watcher", then Hell isn't a nice place.
>> Anonymous
>>878234
By time-traveling, you would set up an alternative past, which would lead to a completely new kind of future, regardless of what happened in the 'original' timeline from where you began your timetravel. This is no logical conflict, since the two timelines cannot communicate with eachother.

Time is simply another dimension, just like the three we're used to handle. It's just like saying you cannot build a pyramid since you cannot comprehend more than a two-dimensional system.
>> Guy !3GqYIJ3Obs
>>878237
Let's go to dictionary.com
1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
6. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.
>> Guy !3GqYIJ3Obs
>>878244
Atheism
1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.
no 1 is hard atheism
no 2 is soft atheism
>> Guy !3GqYIJ3Obs
>>878246
Me sorry amigo
but me no see parallel in definition
>> Guy !3GqYIJ3Obs
>>878249
Atheism is a belief NOT a religion
there are atheistic religion such as there are theistic ones

Examples of atheistic religions:
Theravada Buddhism
LaVeyan Satanism
Jainism
I think Hinduism has branches that are soft atheistic
>> Guy !3GqYIJ3Obs
>>878251
A baby that is just born is soft atheistic and soft agnostic since it has like *zip* knowledge about even the term God.

In no way is that baby following any kind of religion man.
>> Anonymous
>>878253
"Soft" Atheism is mere Agnosticism. Nothing more.

All Atheism is "hard" Atheism.
>> Guy !3GqYIJ3Obs
Let me just make this short

Hard Atheism = belief no God
Soft Atheism = lack of belief there God
Theism = belief there God

Note: BELIEEEEEEF

Gnosticism = knowledge there/no God
Hard Agnosticism = Impossible for knowledge there/no God
Soft Agnosticism = Not know there God or not

Note: KNOWLEEEEEDGEEEEE

Religion = kinda hard, it has rituals, it has practices, and based on belief on something.
>> Anonymous
>>878233
What if evil is for the sake of peoples’ enrichment rather than punishment? The afterlife will kick even more ass compared to whatever you suffer in life. This is particularly true if in addition to the rewards of the afterlife, everything bad that happened to you in mortal life is remedied. Think about it like this:

If a stranger cut off your hand you’d be really pissed right? But what if they cut off your hand and insisted that you ask for your severed hand back… and say please. So swallowing your pride and in hopes of having the hand surgically reattached, you oblige. At which point the stranger not only miraculously reattaches your hand, but makes you immortal, eternally young and beautiful, and gives you powers beyond your imagination? Would you complain about the temporary loss of your limb, or say thank you?
>> Guy !3GqYIJ3Obs
>>878255
BULLSHIT
That's what you wanna say?

The definition's there, stop denying it exists.
>> Anonymous
>>878258
I know you probably mean well, but I couldn't help but laugh at the very thought of anyone actually believing this.

Sounds like an ancient desert-dwellers pyramid scheme.
>> Anonymous
>>878260
Furnish other sources of this definition than your own words on this imageboard. Dictionaries and encyclopediae acceptable, wiki not. Links needed.

Calling what is essentially agnosticism as "Soft Atheism" seems a bit too much like someone trying to create a definition to lend weight via sophistry to one side of the argument, which it should not rightfully possess.

I'll partially retract if proven mistaken. Far be it from me to persist in ignorance.
>> Anonymous
>>878257
There are actual (exact) definitions of these concepts. You don’t just get to decide that they mean something different because you feel like it. The one who coins a phrase is the one who decides what it means, not you.
>> Anonymous
>>878263
More like a protection racket. The guy who cut off your hand being "God", you can't fight back to get your hand back.
Asking nicely would at least give you some chance of getting your hand back, and there's the possibility of more. NOT asking nicely would leave you with your pride, and a bleeding stump.

Either way, that "God" is a prick.
>> Anonymous
>>878257
Problem: By the main definition, not all religions have rituals and practices.
>> Anonymous
>>878263

You’re very condescending. The concept described there actually makes a lot of sense. It says a lot about you that when someone puts their self out there to try and explain something instead of just insulting you, and you turn around and insult them.
>> Anonymous
>>878278
I'm just sorry, but to me as an individual, that way of thinking just doesn't make any kind of sense considering what we know about nature, what we know of history, and what we know of religion now a days.

I didn't mean it as an insult.
>> Guy !3GqYIJ3Obs
>>878265
definitions are never "exact"
like science, it has holes it has mistakes, it makes up new words new meanings.
Words are imperfect, we just stick to what we have.
Not everybody's gonna agree on my definition, I know that.

>>878264
Giving links would be to much of a bother, besides, everyone on the internet is making their own definitions of Atheism, most I find as appalling.

Anyways, I take Atheism as two definitions because I think it goes:
A : Absence
Theos : God

Absence of God

Absence in belief can be because of two things:
Rejecting God
Being Ignorant or just answering "I don't know." when asked "Do you believe in God?" or "Do you believe God exists?"

I always like to compare this and Agnosticism.
>> Anonymous
>>878270
Hint: he was going to heal the hand either way.

Also I don't recall there being any mob protection rackets that rewarded people with super powers for cooperating.

The whole ‘God is mean’ argument is so irrelevant as well. First of all being mean doesn’t mean you don’t exist. Secondly if you understand the gravity of the God concept than surely you know that he could do a lot worse things to us. The fact that God has even bothered to create us makes him a pretty great guy in my book.
>> Anonymous
>>878282
Ah. See, that's what most everyone takes as simple agnosticism. The trouble you get into with this is that few - myself included - see the point in unnecessarily complicating things with such sophistry.
>> Guy !3GqYIJ3Obs
>>878287
Agnosticism is about the no knowledge about God/gods/Deities/etc
Not about God Him/Her/It/Whachamajiga self
>> Anonymous
>>878286
I never argued against the existence of God. Wrong anon.

The "God is mean" argument does have relevance, though. It means everything for the sake of ethics, morals, and their relation to theology; particularly, the "God is Perfect" tenet of most monotheistic faiths, particularly the Judeo-Christian one.
Creating something doesn't necessarily mean you did so with good intentions. Many immoral people have children just so they can place a greater welfare payment claim. There are many avant-garde artists whose entire purpose in creating art is to destroy it in public. And there are many worse examples out there.
Just creating something is not evidence of benevolence toward the creation, let alone love.
>> Anonymous
>>878286
The "God is mean" argument is quite relevent when you are talking about the existance of the judeo-christian "Benevolent God". Against the rather morally neutral viewpoint of a creator god as a "living big bang", it holds no ground, but it is very relevant if you're gonna claim we are the tiny followers of a big happy "sky-daddy".

I'm not even gonna comment on if there somewhere out there exists the "Sentient Big Bang/Supreme Being" version of God out there in the infinity of space, but the "Happy Sunshine Judge" version of God many attribute creation to and even so much as our continued daily existance is just laughable if you just _look_ at their teachings and history.
>> Anonymous
>>878294
I don't deny the definition exists, Guy. I simply do not accept yours as the correct one, by way of it not having much support outside of your own assertions.
>> Guy !3GqYIJ3Obs
One of the shitty definitions of atheism that I found:

Atheists believe that all people evolved from monkeys and rocks. They also believe that the universe was created by an explosion called a “Big Bang”. Any child knows that explosions destroy (rather than create), however I only mention this as a means to illustrate just how preposterous and unscientific the core beliefs of Atheists actually are.

Some Atheists call themselves “Intellectuals” or “Agnostics”, but all of them have something in common; specifically they do not accept Jesus Christ as their personal savior and therefore are going to Hell... but more than that they wish to drag you along with them!

You may not personally know an Atheist, but there are over 50,000 active atheists in the USA. Despite the insignificant size of this group, they are part of a well-motivated conspiracy to destabilize our values.

The best way to understand the nature of atheism is to understand its author. Satan is its author.

It's important to remain conscious of the fact that Satan had his origin in heaven, and is thoroughly familiar with the fact of the existence of God, heaven, the angels, hell and etc. Thus despite what you have been previously, deceptively taught and despite the deceptive dictionary's meaning of atheism, atheism is properly defined as a denial of the existence of God in the midst of full knowledge that the true God does indeed exist. Atheism knows God exists; it is quite familiar with that fact, but it says "under no circumstance or situation will I admit to God's existence."


Most of you will see it as a joke, some of my friends find that as an actual definition.
>> Guy !3GqYIJ3Obs
>>878301
Meh, no problem.
I don't take evolution as a fact because it's not exactly absolute.
Just as long as you don't deny it, I'm fine.

Anyways, I'll return as an anon an go to /a/ now.

bubye
>> Anonymous
>>878159

Probably the most retarded argument I've come across lately.

Simple question? Are you fucking kidding me? We're not cosmologists. And science isn't stagnant like religion. It doesn't pretend to have all the answers from the get-go. Instead, it progresses.
>> Anonymous
>>878298
I don’t believe that the human role in procreation is the same as creation. The human couple does their part, but God still creates the baby. I also don’t believe in cause and effect as it applies to the creation of people (ie: ‘If my grampa had died in WWII I would be here‘). I believe that God has a plan for every soul before he creates them, and will simply manifest the soul in a different body if human error disrupts his plan. Note: the degree to which humans disrupt God’s plan for themselves or others may seem catastrophic in human terms but is small and temporary in light of God’s influence. This effect that we have on ourselves and each other is what constitutes freedom (which is an amazing gift no matter what anyone says). The bottom line is simply this: no matter how much people blame God for ‘allowing’ bad things to happen, we (for the most part) are the direct cause of those bad things. In addition to this our evil acts are made worse by virtue of the fact that we usually cannot remedy them, however there is nothing that God can’t fix or make better (which he has promised to do).
>> Linus Trollfag !/mR.AaI0kw
>>878303
sounds right to me, just another group of dumb fucks
>> Anonymous
>>878314
shut up trollfag
>> Anonymous
www.zeitgeistmovie.com
>> Anonymous
For all the Big Bang bashing bastards out there, consider this:

If you're willing to accept that God created the universe, that would mean that God is infinite, s/he existed before the universe. By the same logic you could argue for the validity of the Big Bang theory.
>> Anonymous
>>878310
This is absolutely hilarious to me.
1. If you put the question plainly to a scientist ‘do you have all the answers?’ he/she will of course reply with an emphatic no. They will then proceed to act as though they DO know everything. This is concept is known as ‘arrogance’.
2. The bible (I can only speak on behalf of Christianity) does assume to answer all questions. In fact it is very clear on the fact that certain knowledge is kept from us (Gees dude, that’s only the very premise of original sin). Believing without total proof is called ‘faith’.

3. Christians how pretend to have all the answers are simply trying to force their own interpretation on you. This is called ‘dogma’ and if you think you hate it, get in line. It’s a perversion of the faith and misrepresents what Christianity is about. A perfect example of this is these ridiculous televangelist idiots who try to predict ‘end times’. That kind of alarmist crap isn’t what Christianity is about.
>> Anonymous
To believe in god is to weaken once intelligence.
Enjoy being a coward and afraid of living your life the way you want.
>> Anonymous
>>878322
The idea is that if one thing has to have been there forever, it makes more sense that it would be a supernatural being with an actual mind and will, as opposed to some random material.
>> Anonymous
>>878330

No, to believe in god is to disgrace entire mankind.

The fact that you need to turn to somebody "supernatural" for guidance and answers shows just how incapable you are acting on your own.
>> Anonymous
>>878330
That assumes that they DON'T want to live their lives in service to their God.

Your philosophy is a failure.
>> Anonymous
>>878327
Relegion = KEEP FAITH FOREVER.
Science = Try to understand the shit around you.
>> Anonymous
Just 10 more posts maybe we can solve this!
>> Anonymous
>>878339
As strange and alien - nay, outright impossible! - as it may seem to you, there are religious people out there who USE THEIR BRAINS.

In fact, considering that God gave them brains and the ability to think and reason with them, it could be seen as a horrible sin to refuse to use those gifts.
>> Anonymous
>>878330
The first part of you statement is a lame bumper sticker and naturally lacks any substance. As for the rest, I want to live a moral life. It’s necessary component of dignity and self worth. Also deviating to far from morality (Christian or not) always ends in tragedy. Note that when I say ‘morality’ I mean not murdering, raping, stealing, backstabbing, doing drugs, etc. These are things that can hurt yourself or other people and are just smart to avoid. I personally don’t care about swearing, drinking, R rated movies, etc. That’s just stodgy egotists projecting their own views onto the faith itself. As far as being a coward goes- that’s pretty funny considering that in today’s day and age it’s far easier not to be a Christian. Regular social situations are pretty daunting when everyone thinks you’re a bigoted quack the moment they find out you’re a Christian, because of all the anti-Christian sentiment out there. Seriously dude- I’m on 4chan, how much of a kill-joy could I possibly be?
>> deckzone3000 !RuYSLUcdBo
>>878174
Idiot. Why would the universe have to follow its own physics BEFORE IT EXISTED?
>> Anonymous
>>878334
This is a complete failure of logic. This is only true if God doesn’t exist and we imagine him because we’re too inept to make our own rules. However, if God does exist we’d be stupid not to want answers from him. You’re argument is not only from the perspective of someone who doesn’t believe in God, but has the one dimensional ignorance of someone who doesn’t even understand the concept of God.
>> Anonymous
I don't think the concept of God's essence can never be understandable by us human.

If time is the 4th dimensions, surely God exist above it, or maybe outside the dimension concept itself.

Well, we human can always try, though :P
>> Anonymous
>>878330
This is a lie. To hold belief in something is to expand your mind to a possibility beyond human logic and reasoning, to fear God and thus prevent living your life is pointless, the gift of life and the gift of a mind that is--technically--free enough to make a decision but only on the pretense of what it's experienced already. If it is a gift from a higher power, or it is not, be it God, or be it something of nature, or random chance. I believe in a higher power, but I do not let dogma and interpretation prevent me from being who I am or doing as I feel I will to do. I just accept my fate as it will come.

Religion is a religion, it is, what it is. My faith and my belief, is simply that; belief, speculation. Do I know for certain? No. Will I ever? Maybe, maybe not. Do I have faith that there is something out there? Sure, I cannot accept personally that it was just a random chance we're here, not with everything else out there that we just can't explore to a full extent. I'm disinterested in an argument which simply seeks to antagonize others based on the fact that they think there's a man behind the curtain, by those who feel they're superior and less philistine for believing otherwise. Who the hell do you think you are? We breathe the same air, we drink the same water, we live on the same goddamn rock. Shut the fuck up and suck it up.

>>878194
Whoever this philosopher is-- he/she's right.
>> Anonymous
>>878113
yeah I agree
why can't there be a big fuck creating the universe waltzing in a toga and long white beard and just magically make our planet appear out of nowhere and plant some humans there, I mean really, the big bang theory is just ridiculous if you ask me, try read the whole thing instead of the summarized version you can get from anyone.
GOD DOES EXIST HE CAME DOWN TO EARTH AND ENLARGED MY PENIS WITH HIS MAGICAL WAND
>> Anonymous
>>878350
If it didn't exist it wouldn't be doing anything.. because it wouldn't be there. I don't think you grasp the concept of complete oblivion.
>> Anonymous
>>878359

So yeah, the fact that some lunatic sits on a cloud, created world in 7 days and made woman from man's rib is much more logical.

Suuuure.
>> Anonymous
I like how those seem to be sorted by probability
>> Anonymous
lol discussion.
>> Anonymous
and after all this hullabaloo...it turns out the *mormons* are right...

srsly though; the description of a thing is not the thing itself. "this is not a pipe" n'all. in truth deity is probably far grander, more wonderful, and more terrible then any deffinition humans could easily concive.
>> Anonymous
In conversations like these the more you listen to the nay sayers, the more you get the impression that they simply don’t comprehend concepts like faith, existence, oblivion, morality, and God. All you get is the ‘God doesn’t exist because he doesn’t exist’ arguments. That’s the same as Christians saying ‘because the bible says so’ to someone who doesn’t believe the bible. If you need proof of God’s existence, divinity, and benevolence, eat some bacon, drink a cold beer, and muse about titties. They weren’t lying when they said ‘and it was good’.
>> Anonymous
>>878361
Pigs flying out of your ass makes more sense in the context of existence than 1+1=2 does in the context of oblivion. Regardless of your theological stance, not knowing this makes you a drooling retard.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
youre all a bunch of fags
>> Holy hell! Science! Chapter 1 Anonymous
>>878355
That imagry of 'God' is simply the form chosen to represent wisdom, and a fatherly figure. Which amusingly enough was dirived from Greek and Roman images of Zues/Jupiter. The halo is taken from the 'sundisk' in Egyptian imagry, which did make an impact on the Judeo-christian faiths during their hardships in said lands.
-but as I said, it's the imagry, not the concept.

>>878355
Although I'm no Theologist/Cosmologist a speculation I have very well could be:
when 'God' said "Let there be light"
Big Bang occurs. Come on, if there was an explosion (which is a release of energy from a reaction, not neccissarily destruction, though it causes what we view as destruction), then it would be really fucking bright.
>> Anonymous
>>878211
There is a theory that time travel is possible because all events of time travel have already happened. I.e., if I went back in time, if you checked a history book before I'd gone back, whatever I did would already be there.

Also,
>>878194

Time travel into the future is fully possible and has already happened, and I don't mean "I am travelling through time at the speed of time". Astronauts technically travel a few seconds into the future during their trips because of the speeds they move.

Which is awesome. All we need to do to get to the future is go really, really fast for a while, then stop.
>> Holy hell! Science! Chapter 2 Anonymous
>>878372
>>878359
Although at the moment we do not understand: Infinity, Oblivion, and all of Nature: which falls into the realm of faith.

We do have scientific and quite simple annotations to such:
Infinity, or the 8 laid on it side, bears a simple notion towards neverendingness (if that truely is a word). so long as we do not have a measure of the universe, we BELEIVE that it MAY be infinite. However, this also poses a problem, if you travel on a featureless sphere, you will APPEAR to go on forever, especially if it is large enough to not know it is a sphere.

Zero is a representation of oblivion. Neigh impossible to truely grasp, but still enough knowlege about it to hang on to the idea.

Fractals. There was a /x/ post a long time ago about fractals. I watched a film on it and researched it a bit on the internets. Interesting and informative: Through a specific, and complex calculation, and through computer imaging, it can very much mimic nature. And it is so convincing on how well it works, who's to say it's not in the very works of DNA and life itself?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractals

Another Numerical equation, "Phi" is also in found in nature on a regular basis. usually in the lengths of a body part, like your arm, or even the complex spiral of a Nautilous shell.
Otherwise known as "The Golden Ratio"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_ratio

measure from shoulder to fingertips, then from shoulder to elbow on your arm. From hip to foot and hip to knee. Even head to toe, then head to waist. It'll suprize you, trust me.
>> Holy hell! Science! Chapter 3 Anonymous
Last is well known, Pi. 3.14..(immensly numerous amounts of decimal places). We use it to measure circumference of spheres, circles, round stuff >_<. It's everywhere.

Who's to say, Faith and Science cannot be one in the same.

Oh yeah, and Scientologists. Please beat the Thatans out of yourself with an E-Meter, untill you forget how to push it on people.

(I've read alot on almost any religion I can find. Though I have no degree or anything, I like to learn all I can about everything that no one understands fully. Of course, I use it where I can.)

Praise your diety, or if you don't beleive/follow in one. Praise you for reading the whole bit of info I threw out there.
>> explainations ... Anonymous
ever stop to think that essentially, the creation story in the bible is -essentially- correct, but christ fags have ruined the -meaning- of the story.
lets say, just for the sake of arguement, that a celestial being ( or some superior sentient being we have a hard time comprehending ) came down and explained the creation of ... everything. now, understandably, he needs to explain it in ways primitive man will be able to understand. the days? a denotation of time so that dumbfuck man can understand that time has passed.
1) in the beginning, at first there was darkness, then 'god' created light. : aka big bang. matter is created and energy is flung all over.
2) 'god' creates night and day, the stars int he sky... : the true denotation of time and more notably, matter is rearanging itself into glowing gasses, most like ly the stars and nebulae...
3) 'god' creates the earth and the land. : zomg, planets form. the solar system is created.
>> explainations ... pt 2 Anonymous
>>878609
4) 'god' creates the earth, the water, the air. our planets' continents form, the oceans fill, the atmosphere is created.
5) 'god' creates the fish in the sea, the birds in the air, the animals on the land. : first off, note that man is not here yet, he came after... because he HADNT EVOLVED YET. or, if he had, he hasnt become aware of himself...
6) 'god' creates man... or, as i like to call it, man woke up and became aware of himself, i mean think about it... he spent -one- whole day one man? right.
7-finally-... and on the 7th day, god rested. why? isnt god all powerful? he created everything right? why need to rest? lets look at the story of adam and eve. you know, the day 6 of the 7 days? oh right, most christ fags think thats day 8... bullshit. lets look in...
>> Anonymous
TL:DR
>> explainations ... pt 3 Anonymous
okay, were told that man was created and that afterwards having named all the animals and whatnot, he was lonely. so he went to 'god' and said, 'lonely'
so god 'created' woman. ( with a really bullshitty story that was taken wrong, mostly because they thought an extra rib actually ment something ) then we have the garden of 'eden.' personally, i see this perfect landscape as ignorance in its purest form. you dont realize what shit your in till you learn what kind of shit it is right? 'god place man ( man as in both man and woman ) into the garden, but he ALSO provided the tree or knowledge. why? if god had a master plan for man... why provide man with something to 'destroy' his faith in god? or, perhaps, that was his plan. think about it. perhaps god wanted man to eat from the tree, to gain knowledge.
we know that all the biblical plagues, floods, fires, quakes and storms can be easily explained by science, and primitive mans weak grasp on what he doesnt understand. now, think that once 'god' lost his 'hold on man' once he ate the fruit from the tree, god moved on. he left. this is the 7th day. we are living in the 7th day. we are learning things, searching the cosmos, and not finding this thing called 'god' anywhere other then a book, and faith. so, really, faith isnt a bad thing, unless its blind faith. blind faith keeps you stupid, or in the 'garden of eden' because your fucking ignorant to what really might have happened.