The Big Bang Theory | In the beginning there was nothing.. and then it exploded..WTF? | image tagged in funny,demotivationals | made w/ Imgflip demotivational maker
11,125 views, 140 upvotes, Made by VanadiumWolf1 13 months ago funnydemotivationals
Add Meme
Post Comment
reply
26 ups, 3 replies
One Does Not Simply Meme | IF YOU THINK "NOTHING" CANNOT CAUSE AN EXPLOSION YOU HAVE NEVER IGNORED YOUR WIFE WHEN SHE SAID, "NOTHING" | image tagged in memes,one does not simply | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
reply
8 ups, 1 reply
One Does Not Simply Meme | THERE WAS A DEFINITE "BIG BANG" EXPLOSION AFTER I TOLD MY WIFE, IT WAS "NOTHING" | image tagged in memes,one does not simply | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
Sorry for replying with the same meme template
reply
5 ups, 1 reply
Truste, when you say nothing, it's something. When she says nothing, it could be fatal
reply
6 ups, 1 reply
made w/ Imgflip meme maker
reply
6 ups, 1 reply
You've met my ex, I see.
reply
5 ups, 1 reply
I used to tell my ex "It's not you"... that was a lie, it was definitely him.
reply
4 ups, 2 replies
I treated my wife terribly. If she said something, I took her at her word. Nothing big or major like buying a motorcycle, but little stuff. I told her I was going to subscribe to Playboy, and she said go ahead, then got pissed when the issues started arriving.

Raising kids was fun. She'd tell them to ask me if they wanted to go to a friend's or such. If I didn't see a problem with it, I'd say sure. Shed reade the riot act saying that she didn't want the kids to visit their friends. I told her she should have told the kids that. I never held the kids responsible for asking me to do something. If they asked me first, I'd ask the missus if their was any reason they couldn't go. She usually had some reason (chores) but by being proactive in not letting them whipsaw like she tried to do, they turned out okay. Trying to keep the grandkids in line when I visit them. One missed her weekend with Grandpa by not finishing her chores after I told her. My daughter appreciates the help.
reply
5 ups, 4 replies
I would have been grateful if my ex only looked at porn, instead he was f***ing our neighbor. He spent all our money on toys (guns&computers) and lying about paying bills to the point we almost got evicted several times (I was forced to use my college money to keep a roof over our heads instead of going to school). He even sold my car without telling me. I just came home from work one day with him standing on the sidewalk with some guy. He asked me if I had all my stuff out of the car, then without a word, took my keys from me and handed them to the guy who preceded to get in my car and drive away. Then he took our other car and refused to let me use it. I got injured pretty badly and he refused to take me to the clinic. I ended up walking 16 miles in FL heat on a broken foot to get treatment. Not only that, but he drove past me walking on the side of the road and didn't stop, just left me there. He would go work on his motorcycle, then bypass the kitchen sink with the orange hand cleaner, go in the bathroom and wipe the car grease on my shower towel then re-fold it so I didn't see the grease, and I'd smear it on myself after bathing. He would use my facial cleanser sponge to clean the shower instead of a regular sponge and put it back as if it were still clean. I could keep going but you get the idea. The therapist I went to during the divorce didn't believe me at first, thought I was delusional because 'no one can be that mean' then I brought in one of the towels he greased up. She realized I was't lying and was floored.
reply
7 ups, 3 replies
That's not a man. That's a selfish, almost sociopathic piece of garbage.
reply
1 up
I agree. that guy was a bastard, asshole and dick.
reply
[deleted]
0 ups
[image deleted]
reply
[deleted]
0 ups
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
I'm not a therapist, but I can believe you. I've seen guys like that. I learned a lot on how to NOT treat a woman. The biggest problem my wife and I had over the years is I like to withdraw from people. I usually jumped into a book or newspaper. Not much of a socializer, nor drinker. I wasn't a saint, but she knew I wasn't a major skirt chaser. When her sister's husband left for a lady he found on the internet, my wife wasn't worried about the time I spent here. I never kept my marriage a secret and stayed the living hubby. When she met some of my online friends IRL, it was like they were old acquaintances.

Oh well. At least two of the three kids have rallied behind me in support, as well as the grandkids.

I'm far from perfect, but now I'm just taking my time. I have a couple "FWB" ladies that stop by on occasion, but they understand grandkids first. The grands don't have a problem with my lady friends, and realize that I may remarry someday, or shack up. Even my kids are understanding of that now that they're adults.

As for your ex, when you're ready and want a man, I hope you find one worthy.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
Thanks Swiggys.
I actually don't consider it how not to treat a 'woman', but how not to treat any person. I wouldn't even treat a stranger that badly. Mistakes are one thing, I know I made a few, but his behavior was vicious, underhanded and deliberate.

I'm an intr-extrovert, most photographers are. We want to be where the action is, but not be directly involved in it. :)

I never had kids. An inept ER doctor took that choice away from me when I was 17 after a bad car accident. Truthfully I'm grateful that I didn't have kids with him, especially with all the divorce nightmares I've heard about.

I tried the FWB thing, but ended up just feeling used and unsatisfied (physically and emotionally) If it works for you and your partner(s), go for it.
As for me, well I'm looking, but not hard. I used to internet date, which was mostly disappointing. Now I feel that when things are right, it'll fall into place. In the meantime, I have my own kind of toys to play with.
1 up
That's the way to look at it. I like the idea of having a partner, but I also like the idea of having a bond. It's not something you can really explain to young people that are more enamoured with romance than their partner, but you get the idea

Right now, I'm just stepping back. "The Noodle", my youngest daughter, ended up a single mom because her ex decided to step out. I have my hand in raising her girls, now, and I've been invited to move in by the friends she stays with. I've passed on it, and don't have an much argument, although I suspect that may change in the next year or so. Her business partner's wife has already had 3 strokes so I play chauffer when their on the road, plus his daughter has Down Syndrome. It surprised them that the first time she hugged me and called me Grandpa, I didn't have a problem with it. My ex was mortified by my granddaughters having such a friend.

Now to see if I burnt my tarts to bad. First try.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
Daaaaaaaman! I'm soooooooooo sorry for you! :( (and that's not sarcastic)
reply
1 up
Thanks, I'm ok now :) and I'm grateful that I know that not all men are like that. It was just him.
I had a friend who got divorced from a man (that everyone told her not to marry, including me), and she became a bitter man hater. Really wouldn't surprise me if she attended one of those women walks.
reply
0 ups
Call the cops on him!!!
reply
1 up
I made it a meme. Thanks for the chat :)
reply
5 ups, 1 reply
reply
4 ups, 1 reply
To his credit, though, he remembered to add the whipped cream.
reply
3 ups
I was in science and, ironically learning about the Big Bang... :D
reply
5 ups, 1 reply
reply
4 ups
Better than a lot of other theories I've heard.
reply
16 ups, 1 reply
reply
9 ups, 1 reply
You should try this one with a philosoraptor meme
reply
8 ups
reply
14 ups, 1 reply
reply
16 ups, 1 reply
reply
9 ups, 1 reply
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
reply
1 up, 1 reply
reply
1 up, 1 reply
reply
15 ups, 2 replies
The problem of beginnings is the biggest thorn in the side of any cosmogeny that does not allow for the supernatural.
reply
8 ups, 1 reply
You are mistaken on the theory. It doesn't state that there was nothing. You're a special kind of misinformed aren't ya? Get on Netflix and watch Cosmos. All 13 of them. Keep in mind that everything they tell you is a verified fact. Enjoy the learning. It feels good.
reply
5 ups, 1 reply
Saying that there was "something" in the beginning of what we now call the universe only sets aside the problem one step -- if there was "something", what was the origin of that "something", and how did it get into that state? You can postulate any number of fanciful theories, but ultimately it had to *start* somewhere, somewhen. Every effect has a cause -- the universe (or multiverse, if you prefer) of space, time, and matter is an effect. The Cause must be beyond the limits of space, time, and matter in order to bring them into being.

Note that there is nothing here that says *which* god or gods accomplished this feat of unlimited power and complexity, only that it must have had such a beginning. But I may watch the Cosmos series, it will be interesting to see how they managed to "verify" something that happened (supposedly) billions of years ago. If they managed to unravel the paradoxes of time travel and get a video of the big bang in progress, that's something I'd like to see.
reply
5 ups, 2 replies
You seem to take known history as all possible history. Cosmos is an excellent place to start. Watch it on a big tv. It's very well produced. Thanks to Set McFarland.
reply
6 ups, 2 replies
I am old enough to have watched the original Carl Sagan Cosmos series. And I still found nothing compelling about his statements and explanations about science and naturalism. And in other occasions when I have seen Tyson under a full head of steam I found him to be a rather narcissistic blowhard -- but that is, of course, an ad hominem and takes nothing away from the truth or falsehood of the information he presents. I will do my best to make time to watch an episode or two, but while I do, consider this:

Scientific fact is not determined by consensus. The phrase "most scientists believe" is usually a prefix to a statement that someone wants to have weight, but for which there is no definitive proof. If "most scientists believe" that there is no deity, that is not, in and of itself, proof that it is true. Science, as Octavia_Melody has well and reasonably stated, is the study of the natural, and can make no pronouncements about the existence or actions of the supernatural. On the question of origins, all science can do is take what they observe happening in the present, and project in time, "running the film backwards", using logic and data. And there is nothing wrong with that, as a means of coming up with a theory. Some things, though, cannot be explained by current science. Some may, in the future, become evident as science advances. But some can never be explained except by breaking through the limitations of what we can observe -- multiple universes, "branes", and stable singularities which inexplicably came into being and even more inexplicably became unstable and exploded.

None of this can be proven, it is just an example of how far a mind will go to avoid the existence of something that not only cannot be explained in scientific terms, but might actually want something of us. The one thing we must do away with at all costs, is the idea of personal accountability.
reply
5 ups, 1 reply
I don't mean to imply that scientists establish facts. They use facts to build consensus. But on that consensus further research can be conducted. If the research shows part of what was previously believed to be false then scientists don't have a problem correcting the record. The theory of gravity applies to us all. Many deists enjoy pointing out the THEORY of evolution as if that proves uncertainty. At that point you're arguing definition with someone who is just being bratty. I don't think that applies to you but you seem to seek to find out what happened before the big bang and science is still trying to piece together the history of the universe as it exists in our dimension. Nothing is ever going to get me to a deist view unless I see the things that deists talk about start happening. And truthfully I would probably think I was being tricked. Hitchens famously asked "Which seems more likely? That the natural order would be somehow suspended or that a Jewish mynx might tell a lie?"
reply
5 ups, 1 reply
A devout Jewish man would rather die than tell a lie. But that is a false dichotomy -- of course it is more likely that a person would lie than for a miracle to occur. The question is more like, "which seems more likely -- that a state of utter chaos produced the orderly, predictable universe we see, or that it was designed by something or someone with intelligence, intentionality, rationality, and purpose?"
reply
5 ups, 2 replies
There are enough design flaws in the human body alone to show that it wasn't intelligent design.
reply
5 ups, 1 reply
I'll up vote the whole exchange!
reply
4 ups, 1 reply
3 ups
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
[img]i.imgflip.com/1i9e9y.jpg (click to show)[/img]

I've seen the Cosmos and Through the Wormhole and highly recommend both. Great conversation.

We've made existence relative to human life, a birth, a lifespan and a death. We have been creating understandings relative to how we exist. There will be no end of the universe only it's state yet human life will come to an end as it relies on goldilocks conditions (that's 1 of 3) The lifespan stage is now and the only 1 of the 3 we can observe. The "beginning" to me is only relative to life forms not existence.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
Not yet in existence? Pending? Potential? I think Tyrone is suggesting that our reality exists inside the larger reality of a higher being and the evidence for that supposition is even less than the other deist ideas I've heard. Granted I don't go very far exploring deist ideas. I lose interest when the grandiosity kicks in.
0 ups
I like to see conviction and structure in opinions. There's no answer sheet for these theories. I relate more to your arguments in this case but again appreciate conviction and thought provocation especially when it is addressed without insulting distractions.
reply
5 ups, 2 replies
Your last paragraph is one I hear a lot. It basically says "you atheists don't WANT God to exist, because you don't want to be accountable for your actions". It's a nonsensical argument, for two reasons: first, not wanting something to exist and not believing it exists are two totally different things. I don't want child abuse to exist. That doesn't mean I don't believe it exists. I have to accept the reality that it exists, even though it's horrendous. Second, I have no problem with accountability for my actions. I don't believe in God, so I don't believe I am accountable to him. But I am accountable to society and the people around me. If I break a law or hurt someone, society (via the justice system) will hold me accountable, as they should.
reply
2 ups, 2 replies
Not all atheists believe so, perhaps not even a majority. But atheism rather handily does away with anything that could be called an objective standard of behavior. As we can observe throughout history, any number of unspeakable evils are possible (even probable?) when an individual, a tribe, or a culture rejects the idea of a universal moral code. And we need not go to Nazi Germany to see it in all its depravity, there was enough stupidity in Catholicism to generate both the Crusades and the Inquisition -- because that sect of the church set itself up as the only arbiter of "truth" and forbade the common people to read the Bible for themselves in their own languages.

But I digress. Civilization can exist in some form without a bedrock moral grounding, just out of enlightened self-interest if nothing else. But if history is any guide, all cultures (with or without clear spiritual guidance) tend to get worse and worse, rather than better and better, over time. Atheism does away with that objective yardstick, and facilitates redefinition of justice, law, and morality to suit the zeitgeist. The cultures will still decline, but they don't have to bulldoze a culturally-accepted set of spiritual norms to do it.

Admittedly, now we are into philosophy rather than science, but it is part of the discussion. "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy." Hamlet, act 1, scene 5.
reply
2 ups
And here we have Virgin Mary-Madonna chiming in on theological versus scientific discussions!

<3
reply
1 up, 1 reply
Ummm.. not so much. Bad people will do bad things. It takes religion to get good people to do bad things. This universal moral code is surely not found in the bible. The first 5 commandments are arbitrary actions prescribed to show obedience to this incredibly flawed god. The last 5 are just societal norms that prevail in groups or cultures that adopt most of them. Simply, it's evolution. Groups that killed each other, well they didn't last. To keep the violence down, well don't steal... you can see where I'm going here. Make now mistake, Nazis paid lip service to christianity. If anyone thinks the bible is a perfect book of morals.. please read it. It is all about blood sacrifice, even human sacrifice, torture, genocide, **pe, slavery, and portrays god as all too human. Petulant, easily angered.. the phrase god's anger was kindled appears waaaaay to often in the OT. Also, god let Moses rebuke him? Moses had to remind him of his promises? god is portrayed as a petty bronze age tribal leader for the most part because that is who wrote the stories.. they wrote what they knew.. which was not much. Think of all the scientific errors in the bible.. cosmology stuff. There is not one phrase of revelation beyond what a goat herder could observe within a few miles of where he lived. Nothing on DNA.. germs, solar system, engineering, math.. nothing. the bible is a rated R version of lord of the rings or something like that. Civilizations have come and gone with and without god. All of the points about singularity not being nothing. Kudos. religion is easy, thinking is hard. Religion settles easily with the lazy and stupid. Science does not claim to know everything. But, scientists look for the answers. Religion claims to know it all already. Any gap in knowledge, they just add a dollop of god and voila! Atheists want to be good. Religious people are afraid to be bad.
reply
0 ups, 2 replies
How thoughtful of you. Now did you plagiarize that from Christopher Hitchens, Neil Degrasse Tyson, or did you just summarize a list of prominent atheists from memory?

So many errors, so little time.
(1) You obviously have made no study of the Bible for yourself and are just quoting what others have told you about it or what you have read. Otherwise you would have remembered that it's the first *four* commandments that are about God, and the last *six* that are about dealing with our fellow man. A beginner's error.

(2) You have obviously never read in the Old Testament about how simply it all boils down. "He has told you what he wants from man -- what does God require of you but to act justly, be merciful, and walk humbly with you God?" (Micah 6:8) Which is parallelled in the New Testament, "“In everything, therefore, treat people the same way you want them to treat you, for this is the Law and the Prophets." and "Love does no wrong to a neighbor -- therefore, love is the fulfillment of the law." (Mathew 7:12 and Romans 13:10)
(3) Nowhere, and I do mean nowhere does God ask for humans to be sacrificed as a blood offering to Him, nor did He ever accept such a sacrifice, and roundly condemned it wherever it was found, even among the people of Israel. (War isn't the same thing, and He did command His people in the Old Testament in some cases to go to war. Much too long an argument to go into here.)
(4) Scientific errors? How about "He stretches out the north over empty space And hangs the earth on nothing." Job 26:7, an accurate description for the people of that time, contrary to what was thought in other cultures, that the earth sits unsupported in space. Again, you have not researched it for yourself, you are just parroting what you've been spoonfed.

Nice try, though no cigar. Come back when you've looked at both sides objectively and can make the arguments without relying on the atheistic soothsayers on popular television.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
Ok my friend. I have read multiple versions of the bible to be on the same page with different sects. I live near BJU and read their version. Version is such a curious word. But. as a wanna be textual critic, I understand the need for versions where no originals exist and very few Greek or Aramaic passages exist. So help me with math. 1. I am god. 2. no god but me. 3. no idols. 4. don't use my name in vain. 5 keep Sabbath holy. The reason for our confusion is that these commandments are split up between books and repeated and some of them run together. It's a common rookie mistake. Yes, I did plagiarize the "good people to do bad requires religion" but I am not sure who from. I don't think it was Hitch or Sam. (2) I have read the OT probably 30 times.. each book. OOOH and sir you are so wrong, if I have to, I will get you chapter and verse, but remember in the OT, in Judges, the Judge that asks god for victory in battle and will sacrifice the first thing through the gate if god helps him. Well you know he wins and his daughter walks through and he sacrifices her to god.. it tells how sad he is and how he gives her time to prepare.. surely you have read this. God did order his people go war.. ok that is reasonable I suppose. But, why then would god "harden the hearts of the amorites, hittites, sometites, against conversion to avoid slaughter. god made them resist so they would be killed.. supposedly because their women would bring Ashur and Baal to the tribes. Which makes me think god thought those gods were real. He certainly was afraid of them. His kings, the best kings, destroyed the "high places" of the other gods. Josiah? Then of course he was whacked by the Egyptians. Sir, I have not been spoon fed anything.. I have read your books.. Matthew 5:17-18. Jesus says himself that he is not changing the laws, that the laws, every jot will be in place until the end of heaven and earth. These are the laws of the OT. Jesus was a Jew and clearly referring to Jewish law. If you stick with any literal interpretation of the OT, you will look like a fool. The NT, well most of it was allegedly written by one man, trying to keep expanding a franchise. But the message is muddled. Even the gospels, have different accounts of the same event. Not that we know who Mat Mark Luke or John were, or who wrote their stories... someone wrote their stories, not them.. think about that.
0 ups
Well...I am moderately and pleasantly surprised, and I mean that in the best possible way. For me to encounter someone at random on the interwebs who has a working knowledge of the scripture even though remaining an unbeliever. I tip my hat to you sir, genuinely and sincerely.

I would absolutely love to continue this dialogue/debate with you, for I may learn even from those with whom I ardently disagree. However, I am sure you will agree that imgflip is not the appropriate forum for such discussions, nor is it particularly easy to use in that regard. I don't know if there is a private way to swap e-mail contact information, but if there is I would welcome the chance to continue.

in the interim, I wish you nothing but the best -- in life as well as the afterlife. :)
reply
0 ups
Well thank you sir... I think.. for the other comment. It would not let me reply to it... I have no problem giving you my email address: [email protected] Cheers and I wish you the best as well sir.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
So much win!
reply
0 ups
Perhaps, but not for the team you expected.
reply
2 ups
*Seth
reply
10 ups, 1 reply
reply
7 ups, 1 reply
reply
7 ups, 1 reply
reply
9 ups, 1 reply
reply
5 ups, 1 reply
XD
reply
10 ups, 1 reply
reply
7 ups
reply
11 ups, 1 reply
reply
9 ups, 1 reply
reply
[deleted]
9 ups, 1 reply
reply
1 up, 1 reply
Very good comment
reply
[deleted]
1 up
reply
13 ups, 1 reply
It wasn't an explosion, either. It was a super rapid expansion of all matter/space/time.
reply
8 ups, 1 reply
reply
7 ups, 2 replies
I find it funny that a Catholic priest came up with the theory.
reply
8 ups
reply
3 ups
Even a blind squirrel finds the occasional acorn.
reply
6 ups, 1 reply
reply
6 ups
reply
5 ups, 2 replies
reply
8 ups, 1 reply
reply
6 ups, 2 replies
God would exist outside of time. :) and therefore would have no origin.
reply
7 ups, 1 reply
How convenient :)
reply
4 ups, 1 reply
The God of the Bible exists outside of time, and has no beginning, and no end. Obviously, it varies with other religions.
reply
4 ups, 3 replies
You calling God a liar? Them are HIS first words, are they not?
reply
6 ups, 3 replies
No, don't misunderstand. I believe in every word of the Bible; from beginning to end. I was reacting to various threads with that comment. Genesis is the foundation, and I believe every word. But what I what I said is right, according to the Bible. God has no origin. He exists outside of time. He invented time; He is eternal and outside of the framework of time. And therefore, He has no scientific explanation. He exists outside of scientific analysis; because He is immaterial; and He is the author of both time and matter.
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
Correct me if I'm wrong, but those are the first words of the Bible, are they not?

Aaaaaand they were written previous to the Bible/Torah by whom?
And before them? And before them?

I am not going to debate the issue, because whether in English, Hebrew, Sumerian, Egyption, and whatever language the followers of Satan - God of Light, Truth and Wisdom who originated that story - spoke, those words are simple enough.
Beginning = Beginning

Faith is fine, and I'm all for it, despite the fact that no testable empirical data is required, but to cherrypick and retrofit whatever to fit your own selected narrrative and agenda is a defiance to the very faith your faith requires.

Like it or not, religion, and ALL the Gods, have a history whose context must be understood if you truly wish to understand it.

The authors of that story believed in the physical, and the Gods were physical, and the universe they created to exist in was physical because of it.
By their own testimony, they began when they began. And proceeded forth from there.

The concept of spiritual came in with the Greeks.
And unless the Greeks 2500 years ago created the Gods of the Levant...
reply
5 ups, 2 replies
John 4:24 "God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth." The Lord is a spirit. I know the Greeks had their own theories, as far as the disparity between the Physical and the Material, but the Bible provides its own definitions of those two terms, and provides frameworks to discern their implications. But as I said... I want to eat my chicken...and go to bed, lol. But again, I believe in every word of the Bible. I feel like we are starting a debate with each other... when we already agree to begin with.
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
Written in Rome by a Roman 100 years after Jesus died. And 600 years after the Greek concept of soul = spirit supplanted that of the Hebrew concept of soul = anima - life.

Not Torah, not relevent.
2 ups
Jesus' life isn't in the Torah... are you a Christian? Your meme was of Jesus.
reply
1 up
"I have come to reafirm the Covenant of the Lord with His people"
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
Sorry if that seemed harsh, I meant no direspect.
It's just that like eveywhere you go, God, Mary, Jesus,etc, just so happen to look like the local population, and not the Jews they are.
Likewise interpetation of religious text is a reflection of what we wish it to be, rather than what it is.

A simple question is is it not possible that the natural laws of science are also God's laws, His methods?

This question applies to atheists as well.
Perhaps science explains to us how the hand of God works,,,
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
LOL. It's late, and I'm getting sleepy. And I'm not entirely sure what your position is, so I'm no entirely sure how to respond. But I'll say, Psalm 19:1 "The heavens are telling of the glory of God; And their expanse is declaring the work of His hands." There is an expression of The Lord's character in creation that can be discerned. But there is no way to discern spiritual truth in an absolute way through physical means. That is why The Lord provided The Bible; a historical, philosophical, and dogmatic, description of life and truth.
reply
1 up
I merely stated some facts, and a simple question.
If there are Gods, then they do not need my permission and guidance to exist,,,
reply
3 ups
Couldn't resist :)
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
reply
3 ups, 4 replies
Or maybe it's just a bunch of made up stuff that certain people take waaaay too seriously.
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
The Bible is just a bunch of stories - some turned legends wrapped in myth - to tell the history of a certain group of people.

Ironically those people tend to take those stories as the are - just stories meant to tell the history of these people- and not this impeccably infallible impervious diamond of absolute truth.

Meanwhile, those who wrote it watch those stole kill each other over who misinterpeted it more.
2 ups
Christians by and large will vehemently insist that the bible is the literal word of god. And those who wrote it don't watch anything. They are long dead.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
Jewish people wrote it.
They still exist. It's their text, their history, their book.
They find the Christian fundamentalist wars over their scripture a tad odd and almost hilarious (if it wasn't for the repercussions),,,
1 up
The people who originally laid down the fables that later became "The" bible have died. It's been a couple thousand years.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
The Founding Fathers are have been dead for a couple of centuries, so in line what you're saying that renders the Declaration of Independence and Constitution non applicable.
0 ups
No. Your comment above states that the people who wrote it watch while people kill each other over misinterpretations. They are not here to see their words misinterpreted.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
The Bible is just a bunch of stories - some turned legends wrapped in myth - to tell the history of a certain group of people.

Ironically those people tend to take those stories as the are - just stories meant to tell the history of these people- and not this impeccably infallible impervious diamond of absolute truth.

Meanwhile, those who wrote it watch those stole kill each other over who misinterpeted it more.
0 ups
Time loop? No thanks.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
So i have to believe what a book (I know the original was not a a book) from over 1000 years ago says?
reply
0 ups
You need MY permission to believe or not believe text from 2000 years ago?
Gosh, I'm touched.

I know it's a hassle, but try reading ALL my comments posted here,
The ones that Biblicists took objection to,,,
And the ones that atheists took objection to,,,

Facts, is what I deal with, not this agenda or that agenda,
Facts.
reply
1 up
Precisely, my friend. You cannot start time from within the limitations of time. Nor can you be dependent on the concepts of space and matter in order to create them.
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
I don't know what the origin of the universe was. Period. We have a pretty good idea right now, but that could be wrong. If it's wrong, we'll keep searching. But not knowing something doesn't mean I have to accept as valid or true any answer that comes down the pike.
reply
4 ups, 2 replies
Fair enough. But atheists like to mock religious explanations of the universe, when they themselves do no not know how it came into existence. And atheism does dominate the academic arena, and on that basis, I am well within my rights to ask you to explain how it is you think the universe came into existence. And it is a huge and meaningful question. And the fact that you do not have an answer... "period" am I not justified in asking? I'm willing to explain mine. But you won't be happy with "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth."
reply
4 ups, 4 replies
Atheists like myself like to mock explanations which have no evidence to support them, and rely heavily if not entirely on the supernatural, which by its very definition is unfalsifiable and unscientific.

You're right, it is a huge and meaningful question, and you are well within your rights to ask me where I think it came from. But that doesn't mean I know, or even have an idea. If physicists are correct, the universe is expanding (cosmic microwave background radiation, etc). If it's expanding outward, that implies a starting point. This starting point ("point", autocorrect, not "pony"!) is known as the singularity, an unimaginably tiny point which contained everything we know about: matter, time and space. It expanded outward (when and how, I don't know), cooled rapidly, particles formed, these particles became hydrogen atoms, and over time stars and galaxies formed, hydrogen fused into helium and heavier elements, and now we have Hot Pockets and Imgflip. My understanding of the Big Bang theory is very rudimentary, to be sure, but there are books and YouTube videos and resources which can tell you much more than I could ever hope to. This is the current model accepted by scientists for the origin of the cosmos. It may be proven wrong in the future and overturned. That's not out of the question. In fact, that's how science works. It's always open to review, criticism, examination and testing. But sometimes things in science reach the level where criticism and skepticism are no longer warranted. If someone said they think the Earth is flat or the moon is made of green cheese, that would not warrant investigation by the scientific community, because those issues (the Earth being an oblate spheroid and the non-cheesiness of the moon) have been as settled as they are likely to ever be. Pending discovery of a Parmesan or cheddar core of our satellite, it's not worth a scientist's time to debunk such silliness.

I'm not happy with Genesis 1:1 (or any of Genesis) as a scientific explanation for anything, because it's not science. It completely fails the scientific math or and it relies on appeals to magic and the supernatural, which are outside the realm of science. Science only deals with natural processes, explanations and phenomena. It doesn't say that the supernatural does exist, and it doesn't say that it doesn't exist. It makes no statement one way or the other. And since God is supernatural (outside of nature), science says nothing on the issue.
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
You are right. The Bible isn't science. But since the process of the creation of the universe will never be observed by anyone, it's hard for me to embrace science as a method of reverse engineering plausible theories. The reason I believe in the Bible isn't science, and I'm not a scientist (most people aren't) and it isn't blind faith, its more philosophical. Meaning. Inherent value. Those are things that naturalism has a hard time with. And I don't really believe in the Bible because of Genesis. I believe in the Bible because of the book of Ecclesiastes; a book about a man's search for meaning. It's a philosophical question for me. To me, the Bible, in all its brutality, seems to explain human nature most accurately. No one witnessed creation, but ironically, the Bible ends with God destroying the entire universe, and creating a new one, which humanity witnesses Him creating... which is a nice added touch, from my perspective.
reply
4 ups
You said it's hard for you to embrace science as a method of reverse engineering plausible theories, yet I'm assuming you accept forensic science as valid? Forensic scientists do exactly that. They weren't there when the crime happened, yet they can use science to figure out what most likely happened: blood splatter, ballistics, toxicology screens, even things like weather and insect activity to determine time of death. Science does rely at times on inference, that is true. And like I said earlier, nothing in science is immune from being overturned or disproven. But it is still the most reliable tool we have for understanding the world around us.

I wouldn't say that naturalism has a hard time with things like purpose and meaning, because many materialist or naturalist philosophers have pondered these things. It's just that science and philosophy are two different realms of study. Science can tell us how a tornado forms, but not why people in that tornado had to die. Philosophy examines things like the meaning of life, existence, beauty, epistemology, etc. Science is often unfairly criticized for not answering philosophical questions, but that is not the point of science.

I respect your explanation for why you believe the Bible, and think it was well-said :)
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
Octavia_Melody -- I do believe that the apocalypse must be upon us, for you have stated something so well that I agree with it. Science cannot speak to the supernatural, because it is the study of the natural. It says what *is*, and can make educated guesses about what *was*.

But there is an assumption (an arrogant one, if I may be so bold) in science that says *every* effect *must* have a *natural* cause, including the origin of the universe. Science sees an effect, and therefore there must be a natural explanation, that is, an explanation not dependent on intelligent action, for that cause. And I have no problem at all with trying to find naturalistic explanations for any and every phenomena that we observe. But since science cannot speak to the supernatural, as you reasonably stated, is it intelligent or logical to assert, as a first principle, that no deity exists? Or, even allowing that he/she/it/they might exist, to assert without exception that he/she/it/they never utilize supernatural (intelligent, powerful, intentional) agency in the universe?
reply
1 up
I wouldn't say that science or scientists assert, as a first principle, that no deity exists. We both agree that science only deals with the natural. It doesn't say that God or gods do exist, or that they don't exist.

It is my belief that everything in the world has a natural cause or origin (that is, nothing supernatural causes anything, does anything, or even exists). There are many things in nature for which we do not have an explanation. We may learn in the future what that explanation is, or we may not. But every (and I mean every) single time we find an explanation for something, it is a natural explanation. No supernatural/mystical/ethereal/spiritual force or being has ever been demonstrated to create, produce, influence or affect anything in nature. A supernatural being (or beings) may exist, but if they do, then by their very nature, they are beyond our realm of experience or interaction.

I can tell from reading your posts that you are a very intelligent person, and it's always nice to have a polite discussion about these sorts of things.
reply
4 ups
fails the scientific *method*

Also, thank you for your respectful reply :)

tl;dr scientists don't know everything about the universe, but they know vastly more than the people who wrote the Bible
reply
3 ups, 2 replies
You dont understand because you are closed minded.
You think you are open-minded because you stand up for gays and trannys. But you are in fact closed minded and, well, satanic in nature.
It's true! You are possessed by a demon of a satanic nature.
Your inability to understand the link between the bible and science is a shining example of your closed mindedness and satanic ways.

Here are some pretty juicy notes I've taken linking science with creationism.
You see what I'm saying "link."
Not getting a hard on to kill God like you like to do. But linking the two, because there is something to both.
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
Well obviously i don't know the link between the Bible and science is cause one is through hundreds of years of research and understanding and the other from a book written decades after the crucifixion of Jesus (Yes i know the original bible was not a book)
reply
2 ups
Well read above.
Science wasn't just recently invented you know! :)
reply
3 ups, 2 replies
Standing up for LGBT people is an entirely separate issue from the origin of the cosmos.

Not to be rude, but if being possessed by a satanic demon means I approach the Bible with a healthy skepticism rather than take everything it says as infallible fact, then bring on the demons! They can live in my bedroom...there's some space near the TV stand.

All joking aside, though, saying I'm possessed by a demon, or satanic in nature means nothing to me, because I don't believe demons or Satan are real. If you have proof (I mean actual proof) that they are real, I'm all ears.

It's not that I don't understand the link between the Bible and science. It's that I recognize that there is no link. The most recent books of the Bible were written in the late first or early second century. Microorganisms weren't discovered until the 17th century. More than 1500 years separates the Bible from what we later discovered to be the cause of infectious disease. The Bible says in Genesis that putting a striped stick in front of livestock when they mate will produce striped offspring. What creationist has done a scientifically rigorous experiment proving that true? The Bible makes so many scientific errors, creationists are falling over themselves to make it fit with actual, known, proven science, and failing at every turn.

I understand you believe demons and Satan are real. I don't. So your claims/threats are meaningless to me.
reply
2 ups
I'm a bisexual and am a Catholic, mostly because if you read the full verses and not pick and choose, it refers to pagan prostitution that was wrong. Being LGBTQIA is not.
reply
2 ups, 2 replies
That's exactly what a Satanist would say.
Need proof of the demonic presence?
Look in the mirror.
If you didn't hate God so much you could look at that meme and see it compares exactly to scientific theory.
But you can't see that because the demons have clouded your beta male mind.
Don't worry I'll pray for you! Because you are still His child and I love you, he loves you.
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
:/
reply
2 ups, 2 replies
You have no sense of spirituality what so ever?
reply
1 up, 2 replies
I don't see why I need a sense of spirituality/paranoia.
2 ups
Didnt say you did.
Just pointing out you have no soul.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
Don't see why a soul needs a sense of spirituality. I'm quite a happy person for most of my life.
2 ups
I'm sure you are. Not disrupting that.
Yea look into "soul."
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
"Need proof of the demonic presence? Look in the mirror." I asked for real proof. Looking in a mirror only proves that I'm real, not demons. Try again.

"If you didn't hate God so much you could look at that meme and see it compares exactly to scientific theory." How does it? Please back up that claim with supporting evidence. How does this meme compare to scientific theory?

"...the demons have clouded your beta male mind." Lol, okay :)

Insults are a strange way to show that you love someone :)
reply
1 up
Hey, when his followers weren't listening Jesus whipped them, soo.
reply
2 ups, 2 replies
Not believing something isn't in itself mockery. Many religious people I have encountered seem to reserve the right to be offended by any disagreement with their faith. I might be the only atheist in my family but I love and respect them. Except my kids. They're heathens like me and I love them too. The Bible has a built-in bias against free thought and I think therefore becomes fair game for mockery. But who has that kind of time?
reply
1 up
Well said! :)
reply
1 up, 1 reply
How come your kids are heathens?
I know you are being sarcastic, but is it because you never introduced them to the bible? Honest question, nothing more.
reply
2 ups
My son went to church when he was a kid but I didn't encourage or discourage it. Although I'm sure my lack of participation didn't go unnoticed. He got over it on his own.
reply
4 ups
reply
4 ups
Actually, the universe existed before the big bang, but the big bang was more of a "big expansion"
reply
3 ups
i.imgflip.com/1iapsh.jpg (click to show)
reply
2 ups
reply
0 ups
there was a shit ton of hydrogen and somehow it exploded, but there wasn't enough gravity between it all for pressure to cause it and we don't know what, how, or even WHO did it. but it did
reply
0 ups
in the beginning there was a giant lump of matter that blew up under its own weight
reply
0 ups
A particle and its anti particle can erupt from the overlapping quantum fields that are the space of our reality but not the stuff of our reality (like the expanse of spacetime is not something, its the space somethings occupy). When they arise from the agitation of those fields, they become what we'd call something (a particle) but can annihilate themselves back into nothing. The state of being able to produce a particle means that yes, while there was what we'd call nothing, agitations of the fields can produce what we'd call something. All better?
Flip Settings

Created with the Imgflip Demotivational Maker

Show embed codes
IMAGE DESCRIPTION:
The Big Bang Theory | In the beginning there was nothing.. and then it exploded..WTF?
hotkeys: D = random, W = like, S = dislike, A = back