We're only here to survive? Explain music.

We're only here to survive? Explain music.  | I THINK IT TAKES MORE FAITH TO BELIEVE WE CAME FROM MONKEYS THAN A LOVING CREATOR WHO VALUES BEAUTY, AND ENDOWED US WITH INHERENT MORALS | image tagged in memes,picard wtf | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
2,080 views, 46 upvotes, Made by MirthfulGem 11 months ago memespicard wtf
Picard Wtf memeRe-caption this meme
Add Meme
Post Comment
reply
[deleted]
8 ups, 1 reply
Over a billion people in China who are not Christian. Over a billion people in India who are not Christian. So are all these people going to hell simply because Of part the world they were born in? Doesn't sound like a loving "creator" to me.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
Actually happen to agree. The point is, our enjoyment of beauty, music, and ability to love others to our own harm points to a greater Creator than chance and survival.
reply
1 up
Since art doesn't hinder survival, why would survival based understandings be hindered by people liking art? Beauty and love are excellent traits for survival. Beautiful people are greatly correlated with healthy people and love is plenty motivation for people to work together in surviving.
reply
[deleted]
6 ups
Picard Wtf Meme | EXPLAIN BARRY MANILOW! | image tagged in memes,picard wtf | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
reply
[deleted]
5 ups, 1 reply
CREATION OR EVOLUTION ONE THING BOTH HAVE IN COMMON IS THE TRIBAL INSTINCT | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
Man is a social animal and tribal instinct is burned into our DNA. In some cases, the instinct is localized. Ask any sports fan. Most of the fans around here support Chicago teams because of it's proximity. Other times it goes across racial, religious, or national "tribes". Sometimes, we as a people, expand our tribe to the human race in it's entirety. Look at the rescue workers in Texas. They aren't asking "are you here illegally", "are you a Christian" or "who did you vote for". Other times, we are divided by those questions, but when push comes to shove, we are human beings.
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
unless the "tribal instinct" is actually the ability to love others, given to us by our creator :-)
reply
[deleted]
0 ups
It has served mankind well. Example: Look at how people's tribal instinct kicks in during disasters. Hurricane Harvey comes to mind. People doing what they can to help those in need. Tribal instinct varies on the situation. It is to keep the tribe alive. The bigger the event, the bigger the tribe becomes. We see people that don't think of themselves first. They don't think of their own petty prejudices. Those get put aside. True, there are those that look to their own personal gain: We'll see scammers asking for money to help with disaster relief, but then pocket those donations. They use it as a power play, and soon get exposed, like Ted Cruz leading the way to block relief for the victims of Hurricane Sandy, but now is asking Congress and the president for the same aid he denied east coast victims. Those are the scum of the earth, though, and in smaller tribes would be banished or killed.
reply
4 ups
Psalm 14:1
Romans 1:18-19
reply
3 ups, 2 replies
It requires ZERO faith to believe in evolution. Evolution is a scientific fact supported by myriads of exclusively concordant evidence across multiple scientific fields of study, which not only lack any need for faith, but reject any assertion based on faith offhand, since faith is, by its very definition, an unwavering conviction held with no regard to -- or even in spite of-- evidence; it is the deliberate suspense of critical judgment in favor of an assertion. Science and it's methodology have a zero-tolerance policy when it comes to faith. Our phylogenetic connection to our hominoid ancestors has already been demonstrated by genetics with just as much certainty as can be provided to a father and son by a paternity test, and that's just the beginning of the evidence. Just because you don't understand the evidence or how and why it would work doesn't mean it isn't true; such an approach is logically fallacious, and an appeal to incredulity. And while we don't know what exactly and specifically the mechanism or origin of morals and aesthetic pleasure is, we do know more than you'd think we do, and there are literally dozens of explanatory hypotheses out there with a scientific basis that could all be equally right. Just because we have yet to understand these phenomena in their entirety doesn't mean that we cannot or never will, nor does it call for an ad hoc supernatural explanation. People have been using this "God of the Gaps" argument for thousands of years, and every time they have been proven to be horribly mistaken. Once upon a time, people thought that divine beings must exist because of things like diseases or illness, which they falsely assumed could have no natural explanation. Even after the invention of the microscope, many people of faith still asserted that germ theory could not possibly explain the phenomenon of illness. Such people would appear embarrassingly ignorant and idiotic in the modern era. Additionally, which hypothesis objectively depends more on faith is determined by how much evidence there is for each side; to compare the respective implications of evolution and of creationism, then claim that one requires more faith than the other to believe in because one just "makes more sense" to you than the other, is a baseless assertion derived from ignorance. There is abundant evidence both directly indicative of and exclusively concordant with evolutionary theory, but literally no such evidence exists for creationism.
reply
2 ups, 3 replies
Nice copy and paste :)

If evolution were true. Every single animal/plant whatever would have to stand up to the test. Which they dont.
How come apes aren't giving birth to humans today?
I used to think like you. That's why I really got into science. After learning so much about dna stars, planets I began to notice it was all so beautiful, so very perfect. Almost like an artist's masterpiece. That's how I found religion.
For the big bang theory all that stuff to happen. I mean do you realize what the odds of all these things happening actually are?

"Just because you don't understand the evidence or how and why it would work doesn't mean it isn't true; such an approach is logically fallacious, and an appeal to incredulity."

You said it yourself...
reply
5 ups, 2 replies
"If evolution were true. Every single animal/plant whatever would have to stand up to the test."

Literally every living organism stands up to the test from the perspective of genetics, and many of them do simply by physiology.

"how come apes aren't giving birth to humans today?"

There was never a point in time where it could be said that "an ape gave birth to a man." There is not a single facet of evolutionary theory or population genetics that implies that this would be the case.

"I began to notice it was all so beautiful, so very perfect."

The concept of beauty is an entirely subjective criterion which does not constitute scientific evidence and any way, shape, or form. Likewise, whether or not something is "perfect" depends on how you define the word, and again, is categorically meaningless from a scientific perspective.

"do you realize what the odds of all these things happening actually are?"

No one truly does, since the perimeters that define the statistic probability of their occurrence are (as of yet) unbservable and indeterminable. Yet there is no evidence that suggests such things are impossible, or even unlikely overall.

I also think it is amusing you have posted a picture juxtaposing a skeleton from the genus Homo with a skeleton from the genus Pan, as the former is not descended from the latter. I also think it's funny that the picture uses the word "kind," an arbitrary and unscientific term creationists use to avoid using the actual biological phylogeny of organisms. And indeed, phylogenetically speaking, humans are still just as much apes as chimps are. But anyway, you say there's no missing links between humans an earlier hominoids? How about Homo heidlebergensis, Homo antecessor, Homo ergaster, Homo erectus, Homo habilis, Australopithecus afarensis, Ardipithecus ramidus, Orrorin tugenensis, and Sahelanthropus tchadensis just to name a few?

If you ever had "really gotten into science," you wouldn't have to be asking any of these questions.
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
So pretty much what I said, only much better :)
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
https://www.ucg.org/the-good-news/god-science-and-the-bible-dna-discoveries-demonstrate-divine-design

Explain the woodpecker.
reply
3 ups
The article you linked just lists a series of half-truths about DNA, confuses them with misleading analogies, and makes meaningless unsupported assumptions accordingly. Their claim that "all DNA is actually used," for example, is completely false. While many genes that appeared dormant can turn out to serve an alternative function (which isn't even the least bit surprising given the nature of organic chemistry,) a sizeable chunk of any genome is still literally gibberish, meaning it contains codons which are entirely chemically dysfunctional. Additionally, The comparison of a directly functional chemical lattice to arbitrary informational coding is one that is only used informally and itself only makes sense on a completely superficial level. The claim that the intricacies of DNA could not be the result of natural phenomena is a baseless and unscientific assertion. In fact, there are many theories which postulate how it could have occurred, and according to all evidence as of yet available, any given one of them could be correct.
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
If you truly studied this subject, you would know that what you just said is false. We have myriad transitional forms between last common ancestor with chimpanzees and modern humans. Also, apes ARE giving birth to humans today, because humans ARE in the category of apes. That's like asking "why aren't mammals giving birth to horses today?"

And the beauty of nature doesn't mean there has to be a supernatural intelligent creator, because beauty is subjective. And nature is far from perfect.
reply
0 ups
https://www.ucg.org/the-good-news/god-science-and-the-bible-dna-discoveries-demonstrate-divine-design

Give me the ol'wood pecker theory again. :)

Horses giving birth to humans compared you your ape theories. And you wanna lecture about logical fallacies. :D
reply
1 up
That's very true Natalie, the odds of the universe existing at all are minute indeed. The fact that it does certainly suggests there's a higher force fine tuning things to see the universe is able to exist, despite the vast amount of chaos out there.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
Amazing comment! :)
reply
1 up
Why, thank you :)
reply
3 ups, 4 replies
Can I ask you three questions?

1. If there is an intelligent being who created the universe, how do you know it's the one you believe in, and not a different one?

2. How can an intelligent being exist outside of the physical universe? Intelligence requires a brain, and a brain is a physical object. How can a physical object exist apart from and outside of the physical universe?

3. What are these inherent morals? If we look at the morals of the Bible, then it is moral to kill someone for picking up sticks on the sabbath, force young girls from captured territories to become war wives (Numbers chp 31), execute people for blasphemy, execute people for witchcraft, execute people for homosexuality, execute people for being rebellious children, execute people for leading people away to worship other gods, etc etc. If God gave us the rules in the Bible and he also gave us our consciences, why does my conscience find to be so barbaric and appalling many of the laws in the Bible? If the laws of the Bible and my conscience come from the same God, shouldn't they line up perfectly?
reply
4 ups, 1 reply
:{
reply
4 ups, 1 reply
Atheism
--what follows is not a description of atheism, but rather a pathetic strawman of the Big Bang theory and abiogenesis.

The belief there was once absolutely nothing.
--matter and energy is not nothing. A singularity is not nothing.

And nothing happened to the nothing
--an expansion is not nothing, and a singularity is not nothing

until the nothing
--a singularity is not nothing

magically
--magic has nothing to do with cosmogenesis. The creation myth in the Bible, however, does involve magic.

exploded
--an expansion of a singularity is not the same as an explosion. This is a strawman.

(for no reason),
--purpose or reason belong to the realm of philosophy, not science

creating everything and everywhere.
--over time, yes

Then a bunch of the exploded everything
--another strawman

magically
--magic has nothing to do with natural phenomena

rearranged itself (for no reason whatsoever),
--purpose or reason belong to the realm of philosophy, not science

into self-replicating bits
--yes, DNA is self-replicating. If you deny that, you're denying proven facts which even creationists don't deny.

which then turned into dinosaurs.
--another strawman. Dinosaurs came billions of years after the Big Bang.

In sum, you managed to fit eleven logical fallacies into three sentences.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism

It is atheism though. ;)

Congratulations. You typed alot, but said nothing. ;) lol

So you're saying there is absolutely zero chance of a supreme being? But the extremely, extremely rare and basically impossible percentages of all these things to line up, one after another, after another, after another is the explanation. Anything else is illogical? Am I understanding you correctly?
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
"So you're saying there is absolutely zero chance of a supreme being?"

I'm not saying that at all. I don't believe there is one, but I'm not saying I know for a fact that there isn't one. There very well could be.

"But the extremely, extremely rare and basically impossible percentages of all these things to line up, one after another, after another, after another is the explanation."

It might be the explanation. Maybe we'll never know. And if we don't ever find out, that's okay, too.

"Anything else is illogical? Am I understanding you correctly?"

No, you aren't :)
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
So you're not an atheist after all?
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
I am an agnostic atheist. I don't believe there are any gods, but I also acknowledge that I don't know 100%
reply
0 ups
There you go
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
Nice questions, thank you.

 1- The age of accounts, prophesies actually coming true, historical accounts and global spread are my main ones, outside of personal experience, of course.

2 - I don't pretend to understand God. It's simply more logical to believe that there is a God, than some ridiculous story about monkeys gradually changing over time. I found that question interesting, because I have met very few people that deny the existence of any sort of spiritual side of life. Do you maintain that there is no spiritual or supernatural?

3- Jesus is the only one in history that got morals right. Much of the behavior recorded in the Bible is not condoned by it. The fact that across times and cultures we can point at behaviors and ideals and say this is bad, or that was good, is what I'm talking about. Even the best of biblical characters did bad things. Look at David and Uriah. Jesus is the only one that is perfect. All Christians are bad people. Bad things that Christians have done have no bearing on whether God is real or not. 
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
1--I have seen that most biblical prophesies fit into one of two categories: the unfulfilled and the unimpressively fulfilled. Many prophecies never came to pass, such as the destruction of Tyre, or are relegated to some point in the unspecified future, such as most of Revelation. Most of the rest only came to pass because of how vague they were, such as:
-Jesus "predicting" that in the end times there would be signs in the heavens, mockers, scoffers, backsliders, earthquakes, famines, wars and rumors of wars, etc. This has literally *always* been going on in human history.
-Jews returning to the land of Israel, which doesn't count as a prophecy because people MADE it happen in 1948
-various OT "prophecies" which were said to have been fulfilled by Jesus, when a) there is no historical corroboration that they ever happened (such as him riding into Jerusalem on a donkey), or b) they are deliberately taken out of context to be presented as messianic prophecies (such as Micah 5:2 and Hosea 11:1)

Also, personal experience doesn't count as objective evidence for something. If I say aliens exist because I believe I was abducted by them, does my personal experience prove they exist? Of course not.

2--I don't think that believing in God is more logical; it is simply more convenient. "God" answers all of our questions and mysteries, while at the same time answering nothing at all, and on top of that, the notion of God raises more questions than it answers.

You're misunderstanding evolution. Evolution doesn't say we came from monkeys. It says that all life on Earth shares common ancestry, which is what the evidence supports. I'm sorry if that thought disturbs you, but it's a fact of biology and nature.

I don't believe there exists anything "spiritual," because I have not seen adequate evidence to convince me that such things could or do exist. Do I say that as an absolute, undeniable fact? No, because I could be wrong. Supernatural or spiritual things may indeed exist; I just haven't seen enough evidence to convince me that they do.
reply
2 ups
(continued)

3--Jesus got some morality wrong. He said you should cut off your hand if it causes you to sin. Self-mutilation like that is not moral. It is grotesque. I always hear Christians say that he meant it metaphorically. I don't believe he did, because he stated it as a command, not a hypothetical. And he repeated it three times with three different body parts. He did have some good teachings and values, but I don't agree that all of his morals were commendable.

Those verses I mentioned above WERE condoned in the Bible. They were directly commanded by God to the Hebrews. Yes, there are things in the Bible that are mentioned but not condoned. The levitical laws do not meet that criteria, because they were very obviously condoned (commanded, actually).

"Jesus is the only one that is perfect" I don't believe that, because all of our information about him comes from the gospels, which were written by his followers, so they're clearly not objective and unbiased. They obviously have an agenda, and an overt one at that.

"All Christians are bad people." I don't believe that, either. I'm sorry that your religion focuses so much on the bad things people do. The obsession that Christian theology has with the utter depravity and horribleness of humanity is truly lamentable.

"Bad things that Christians have done have no bearing on whether God is real or not." I completely agree. But I'm not an atheist because of the bad things Christians have sometimes done.

And I do greatly appreciate your respectful reply.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
Answers:

1. I don't. No one does. If they say they do, they're lying.

2. Because the sum total of mankind's current knowledge of the nature of the universe is a droplet of water to the ocean when measured against the sum total of ALL knowledge of the nature of the universe. You say "A requires B". Does it? You're sure about that?

Frankly, I have to laugh at the arrogance and hubris of people who aren't very far removed from the certain knowledge that dragons consumed sailors who ventured too close to the edge of the planet.

Science is great, until it starts thinking it knows everything about everything, and forgets that when it comes to the universe, we are the intellectual equivalent of a cockroach contemplating how a cellular phone network works.

3. Don't fall into the trap of making an argument against Deism by pointing at the fallacy and hypocrisy of religion in general, or worse yet singling out a particular religion. The latter is dependent on the former, but not vice-versa. You can't take a single characteristic of a single religion, and apply it to all Deists. All poodles are dogs, but not all dogs are poodles.

Summary:
I have met some atheists who question the fundamental validity of the theory of natural evolution. Not many mind you, but they're out there. And the reason they are, is because the foundational principle of natural evolution is not only an unproven fantasy, but all empirical and observable evidence in nature tends to run in opposition to it.

To put it simpler, Speciation is a lie, and without it natural evolution cannot exist. To believe in speciation is to believe in something without any evidence to support it. That is the dictionary definition of "faith". Now, I don't begrudge you or anyone else, their faith and their beliefs, but at least have the intellectual honesty to call them what they are.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
"Because the sum total of mankind's current knowledge of the nature of the universe is a droplet of water to the ocean when measured against the sum total of ALL knowledge of the nature of the universe. You say "A requires B". Does it? You're sure about that?"

I say that not with absolute certainty, but with a certainty based upon the best knowledge I have right now, which admittedly is very incomplete.

"Frankly, I have to laugh at the arrogance and hubris of people who aren't very far removed from the certain knowledge that dragons consumed sailors who ventured too close to the edge of the planet."

And it is a wonderful thing that we have come so far from those days.

"Science is great, until it starts thinking it knows everything about everything..."

No scientist I have ever heard of would dare say that we know everything about everything. Just the opposite in fact. If we ever reach the point where we think we have it all figured out, that will be a most lamentable day, for that will be the day when we stop searching.

"Don't fall into the trap of making an argument against Deism by pointing at the fallacy and hypocrisy of religion in general, or worse yet singling out a particular religion...You can't take a single characteristic of a single religion, and apply it to all Deists."

I totally agree.

"...the foundational principle of natural evolution is not only an unproven fantasy, but all empirical and observable evidence in nature tends to run in opposition to it."

If that were so, then evolution would never have attained the level of a scientific theory, rather abandoned long ago on the rubbish heap of discarded hypotheses.

"...Speciation is a lie, and without it natural evolution cannot exist. To believe in speciation is to believe in something without any evidence to support it. That is the dictionary definition of "faith"."

Speciation has been observed both in the laboratory and in nature. I doubt very much that it is a lie, as I doubt very much that the Earth is flat.

"Now, I don't begrudge you or anyone else, their faith and their beliefs, but at least have the intellectual honesty to call them what they are."

To the extent that scientific theories and ideas cannot be proven to a mathematical degree of certainty, then yes. To say that they are dependent upon the same faith as that required to believe that a man supernaturally turned water into wine and rose from the dead after his own execution, then no.
reply
0 ups
"...that were so, then evolution would never have attained the level..."

You clearly underestimate the amount of protectiveness a person can have toward something they've poured their life into.

"...speciation has been observed both in the laboratory and in nature..."

No, it has not. I won't bother to challenge you to provide this evidence, because I've had this particular conversation many times before. Please forgive me if I skip to the end; There is no evidence of literal speciation (a given species transforming into a different species, by any means or method), not in nature and not reproduced under controlled conditions. None. Go look for it. I'll save you some time; you won't find any.

I actually had a guy tell me once, that the proof of Speciation lies in the fact that without it, natural evolution cannot work. He *literally* presented that to me as proof of Speciation, nearly word-for-word. I think I stared blankly at him for a full five minutes waiting for him to grasp what he'd just said. Nope, that guy was a true believer.

Nature on the other hand, makes it perfectly clear that she prefers genetic purity. This is indicated by common behavior patterns in both post-natal and mating instincts in nearly every mammal on the planet. This instinctive predilection for genetic purity that appears to permeate all life, moves in the opposite direction of supposedly mutation-driven evolution.

Now, please let me direct you away from the tiger pit that people tend to fall into right here; Recognizing the tremendous fallacy of natural evolution does NOT, by itself invalidate atheism. You can acknowledge that evolution is a hoax, a crock, an epic con job, junk science at it's utter finest, and not necessarily jump to the unrelated conclusion that the only alternative is some sort of God (big 'G', little 'g', whatever).

"...dependent upon the same faith as that required to believe that a man supernaturally turned..."

I respectfully refer you to Clarke's Third Law.
reply
[deleted]
0 ups, 1 reply
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
Lulz :) always good for a laugh, you are :D "possessed by Lucifer" XDDD roflcopter
reply
[deleted]
0 ups, 1 reply
reply
0 ups
I have something wrong with me because weirdos and nutjobs on the internet make me want to remain anonymous? Nice logic there :)
reply
3 ups
reply
2 ups
If our sole purpose was to survive, we would only need to hunt or grow our food, have access to drinking water and some form of shelter.
reply
2 ups
reply
3 ups, 2 replies
Physical evidence supplants the need for faith. Faith is just believing what you wish for. Also we didn't come from monkeys but we do share common ancestors with monkeys.
reply
1 up
If I believed in what I wish for, I'd be a hedonist :-)
reply
1 up, 1 reply
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
*than. Don't care in the least.
reply
0 ups
reply
[deleted]
1 up, 1 reply
reply
1 up
Thank you!
reply
1 up, 1 reply
The commenting here seems to not be very happy, don't you guys agree?
reply
1 up
Lol, no kidding, and no explanations of music either
reply
0 ups
If God didn't give us reasons to be moral, what good is morality?
reply
0 ups
Faith is too every human G.O.D god option deciding godly Optional decisions godless Observational destractions or Opposite directions.positive and negative Blind faith vs blind to believe faith.its two forces cancelling each other out O,D +vs- god vs devil..add the letter O too god you get the word good! Take away the word D out of devil you get the word evil.good vs evil,god vs devil plus+ vs negative- it's not about what god you believe in or faith you follow every religion believes there god is the right one and that's when the devil gives us the tools to destroy our selves fighting in the name of god and judging people in the name of god! When I didn't know god was hiring anyone? But the devil mite to do his work! Just saying!
Flip Settings
Picard Wtf memeRe-caption this meme

Created with the Imgflip Meme Generator

Show embed codes
IMAGE DESCRIPTION:
I THINK IT TAKES MORE FAITH TO BELIEVE WE CAME FROM MONKEYS; THAN A LOVING CREATOR WHO VALUES BEAUTY, AND ENDOWED US WITH INHERENT MORALS
hotkeys: D = random, W = like, S = dislike, A = back
Feedback