HOME | DD
Not-Sparkly-At-All β Pride
by-nc-nd
#america #tf2engineer #tf2scout #tf2teamfortress2 #tf2soldier #tf2teamfortress #gaymarriagelegalized #gaypride2015
Published: 2015-07-01 19:59:23 +0000 UTC; Views: 4532; Favourites: 267; Downloads: 0
Redirect to original
Description
On June 26, 2015, MuricaΒ became the twenty-first and most populous country to legalizeΒ same-sex marriage, congrats.Art (c) Me
TF2 (c) Valve
Related content
Comments: 603
I don't think that was evangelists...even if it was, they were fake. Just becuase they are doesn't mean we all are.
π: 0 β©: 1
That's where the predictions came from.
π: 0 β©: 1
And obviously they were wrong
π: 0 β©: 1
And yet they use the word of god to scare people every time.
π: 0 β©: 1
God is a very powerful being...I wouldn't blame them
π: 0 β©: 1
Not powerful enough for people to fear him enough not to profit off of him.
π: 0 β©: 1
Yes he is...how do you fear something when you think it doesn't exist.
and fear means you respect him, not go hide behind a bush whenever you think he's there...*becuase he's everywhere*
π: 0 β©: 1
Can you prove he exists? It's a hell of a lot easier to prove and demonstrate something exists, if it does. The burden of proof stands with you... (I mean, it's easier to find the needle in a haystack than to tally up every tiny space where a needle could be but isn't.)
π: 0 β©: 1
Didn't I already send you a thing with bill nye
π: 0 β©: 1
Creationist vs evolutionist
m.youtube.com/watch?v=z6kgvhG3β¦
π: 0 β©: 1
Ken Ham is pulling a lot of smart people who have nothing to do with archaeological study out as examples. Listening to Ken Ham talk pains me physically, he's setting a lot of arbitrary rules... He's saying that they all have the same evidence, but the fact remains that Creationist scientists don't use this evidence to support their claims... He's pulling out a lot of charged language: "Children aren't being taught to think critically (Critical thinking involves questioning every fact or theory brought up), or CORRECTLY (Charged words made to woo a crowd.)..." Β He's bringing up that there is evidence, but he isn't showing it to us or explaining it, pulling the McCarthy method of argument... I should also note that this is at the Creationist museum, and the youtube channel is "Answers in Genesis," the company that he is the CEO of, so both the source, the location, and, equally likely, the crowd, are all biased in his favor from the get-go... He talks about labeling things as different "Kinds,"and he talks about the variablility of the genetics without bringing up numbers or statistics... He's bringing up a study but forgetting that the study's diagram is based off of a small section of a larger evolutionary body, and thus is ignoring the rest of the significant fossil record... "The word Science has been hijacked by secularists" WELL YEAH HAVE YOU ANY IDEA OF WHAT THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD INVOLVES? that and that's also heavily charged language, "hijacked" being a hostile word... And he's going back to his "Observational vs. Historical" science model that isn't really based off of anything... "Based off of the bible, observational science confirms this!" Based off the bible. "Observational science" He clearly hasn't seen the mathematical models for genetic variation, nor anything relating to fruit flies... Well, when you base a model off of the bible, of course it's going to be considered to be religious. You're forgetting how religious the bible is!!! And here's Bill Nye again... He's citing the observed natural processes of the formation of limestone, which makes sense, as well as the estimated lifespans of found fully-grown fossils, which should only be about 6,000 years according to the model presented by Ken Ham, but isn't because of where they're located in the limestone, so evidence has been found refuting the submitted model, therefore proving it false... And now he's citing studies on the ages of glaciers and trapped air molecules, which cannot occur by themselves in an all-ice environment and must be trapped air bubbles in ice, as proven by all observation of frozen water in all other possible environments for ice... And there's talk of the layers of ice, where one forms a year due to the cycling of winter and summer seasons, where there's 680,000 layers found, further disproving the "young earth" theory, as the earth must be older than 680,000 years old for the ice to have formed this way, and for there to be that many layers there'd have had to been 170 winter/summer switches a year, 2-3 winter to summer cycles each week...Β
Basically, Nye's pointing out a lot of things stating "If your model is true, then this should be this way but it isn't, and this should be this way but it isn't, this should look like this but it doesn't, and this should be this old but it isn't. This tree should be dead but it isn't, it's still standing, its leaves still performing photosynthesis..." Nye's kicking ass with specific examples, where Ham only pointed to exhibits in the creationist museum and scripture in the bible. Ham's way of thought seems to be backwards on this; the scientific method is about making observations and writing conclusions based off of them, where Ham's method is finding written conclusions (In the bible) and finding observations to support it. Our model for study and thought worked that way for over 1000 years until the renaissance, and after we changed to the current scientific method, which is entirely secular and doesn't look to biblical scripture for approval, there was SO MUCH PROGRESS MADE that would've been missed if we simply went by what we were told, instead of what we can see. I mean, Di Vinci was among the first people to adopt this model of thought, and he then ended up writing up and building early models for flying machines, parachutes, bicycles, cars, helicopters, computers and calculators. His method of thought actually, at that time, revolved around "No, God didn't do that, ___ did." according to his journals, anyways. I don't see a lot of scientific papers citing biblical scripture, nor do I see a peer-reviewed bible out there.
π: 0 β©: 1
But, why do you need a model of something if you know it exists, and how it got there.Β
Its like a leaf leaf fell from a tree and landed in front of you.
you know it came from a tree and gravity pulled it down *and some other technical stuff* and it landed. Someone has a different theory than what you have.
you know good and well it's dead wrong, so you make a a whole diagram of how a leaf fell from a tree...
if you already know what's true, and what is not what's the point of proving it?Β
If if you don't believe it, then you just don't believe it. It's not benefiting me that you believe what I sayΒ
i have evidence, just like you have evidence, but neither of us choose to believe itΒ
*sadly*
π: 0 β©: 2
Erving the same phenomena. He'd been tending to trees for years. One day, he goes out and wants to find the oldest tree loving. He finds a standing tree, with leaves still green, and bores a hole. "That tree is well over 7,000 years old!" He says, counting the rings. Then somebody comes up to him, points to a book, and says "that can't be, the earth only existed for 6,000 years, and there was a flood that killed all old life 4,000 years ago." Given he's observed enough trees, even if he same species of this ancient one, to be able to know how old a tree is, do you think he would believe this know-it-all coming up to him and contradicting him with written word instead of shown evidence?
π: 0 β©: 0
A man plants a tree and cares for it every day for 20 years. He takes a hollow drill, drills out the core, and finds the amount of rings match exactly how many years old that tree is. He does this for years, with different species of trees, all observing the same principle, while obse
π: 0 β©: 1
None one knows when the earth was created, we just know an estimate, and Even that isn't accurate.
and you have been using 6,000 years a lot..
*i wonder if I would of said 7,000 you would say 8,000
π: 0 β©: 1
If you said 7,000, I'd have less evidence to use. 8,000, even less. However, due to limestone buildup and glacial ice layers, I'll still have hella more evidence than you way beyond the 680,000 year mark.
π: 0 β©: 1
I know, but it's like you add another 1,000 just to make me wrong.
id understand maybe a couple more, but one...that's a little shady.
*but I'm not blaming you for anything...just giving it a thought.*
π: 0 β©: 1
I'm just pointing to where the evidence lies. I'm not adding 1,000 to anything anyways, you just gave me 6,000 years ago and I'm pointing to all of the things here on earth older than 6,000 years old. Need me to point further back?
π: 0 β©: 1
Then I shall point forward. To the works of one William K. Clifford, 1874.
"A shipowner was about to send to sea an emigrant-ship. He knew that she was old, and not overwell built at the first; that she had seen many seas and climes, and often had needed repairs. Doubts had been suggested to him that possibly she was not seaworthy. These doubts preyed upon his mind, and made him unhappy; he thought that perhaps he ought to have her thoroughly overhauled and refitted, even though this should put him at great expense.
Before the ship sailed, however, he succeeded in overcoming these melancholy reflections. He said to himself that she had gone safely through so many voyages and weathered so many storms that it was idle to suppose she would not come safely home from this trip also. He would put his trust in Providence, which could hardly fail to protect all these unhappy families that were leaving their fatherland to seek for better times elsewhere. He would dismiss from his mind all ungenerous suspicions about the honesty of builders and contractors.
In such ways he acquired a sincere and comfortable conviction that his vessel was thoroughly safe and seaworthy; he watched her departure with a light heart, and benevolent wishes for the success of the exiles in their strange new home that was to be; and he got his insurance-money when she went down in mid-ocean and told no tales.
What shall we say of him? Surely, that he is verily guilty for the death of those men.
It is admitted that he did sincerely believe in the soundness of his ship; but the sincerity of his conviction can in no wise help him, because he had no right to believe that based on the evidence made apparent to him.Β He had acquired his belief not by honestly earning it in patient investigation, but by stifling his doubts. And although in the end he may have felt so sure about it that he could not think otherwise, yet inasmuch as he had knowingly and willingly worked himself into that frame of mind, he must be held responsible for it."
"If a man, holding a belief which he was taught in childhood or persuaded of afterwards, keeps down and pushes away any doubts which arise about it in his mind, purposely avoids the reading of books and the company of men that call into question or discuss it, and regards as impious those questions which cannot easily be asked without disturbing itβthe life of that man is one long sin against mankind."
π: 0 β©: 1
Well what if someone told you themselvesΒ
π: 0 β©: 1
So if somebody tells you a thing, that makes it true? Belief by proxy is valid? The only objective way to get the facts of our universe is to see the data for ourselves, do and observe experiments. Read peer-reviewed documents, validated by the hundreds of people in the community repeatedly doing the experiments themselves, checking and adding detailed observations.
The LIGO recently picked up gravitational waves from two colliding black holes 1.6 billion light years away. We used the ripples in time and space to observe an event. Funny thing is, if you want to talk prophecies, gravity was first modeled as a wave in Einstein's relativity conception, but he himself couldn't think of an experiment to demonstrate gravitational waves. That was in 1916, and as of february 11, 2016, we have definite data that demonstrates gravity affecting timespace as a wave function! 100 years!!!
π: 0 β©: 1
If a computer technician says you have a virus...you would believe him would u not?
π: 0 β©: 1
So you're saying that you heard from a certified authority? I'm fairly certain that a Computer Technician could show me the effects of the virus already, as well as what he used to determine that there was a virus, in order to prevent me from getting another one. That, and we know that computer viruses actually exist. Here's the major difference: If I went on not believing the technician, my computer would corrupt over time, noticibly at some point, and I'd have to either wipe it, go to a backup, or get a new computer. If I went on not believing in god, I could go my whole life without noticing anything, but, if it is as you claim, then there's no second chance once I actually notice the negative effect of not believing. That, and we're able to see the results of a computer virus, and make one ourselves. Any more moot comparisons you want to make that you want me to shut down for you?
π: 0 β©: 1
Dude...THATS THE THING
you not believing in Christ is causing noticeable affects I can point out right now..its just that you can't see it, so you automatically think it doesn't exist.
π: 0 β©: 1
Point it out to me then. Give me the one undeniable flaw that I'm enacting because I don't believe. Show me evidence, undeniable proof against all other proofs.
π: 0 β©: 1
You have no desire to be around Christians
π: 0 β©: 1
Untrue, I have no desire to be around people who'd push their religion onto me. I'm perfectly fine around Christians.
π: 0 β©: 1
I'm not pushing my religion you.
and you don't really respect it
π: 0 β©: 1
I mean, you're threatening me with hell, claiming I'm flawed, and comparing my beliefs to a computer virus, soo....
π: 0 β©: 1
Again...I'm not threatening you..I'm warning you.
if I were threatening you I would say.
beleive in Christ or so help me you will go to hell!
but I'm not I'm saying that if you don't beleive you will whether I like it or not.
and deal with it I'm flawed your flawed we're all flawed
π: 0 β©: 1
You're still saying that I'll go to hell, which isn't true. And I refuse to go to heaven either. Neither place interests me.
π: 0 β©: 1
Okay...so you think you will haunt your house or something?
π: 0 β©: 1
Nah. I'd figure that I deserve to go to a world with just as many problems as this one, but different rules. Maybe different laws of physics? That'd be neat, to figure stuff out there and maybe invent something. I don't really care for eternal happiness. Such a thing just doesn't exist in my understanding of philosophy. And if there aren't any problems or dangers in the world that I'm in, then what's it worth?
π: 0 β©: 1
Ok...so what other world do you think you're going to?
π: 0 β©: 1
I can't say I know for sure, but I know what I hope it's going to be like. Either way, that's a hella way off if I play my cards right, so I'm not going to worry about it.
π: 0 β©: 1
That's like jumping off a cliff and saying
oh...those spikes down there don't exist...
but the clouds up there don't exist either...
so maybe I'll levitate sideways, off the planet, and keep levitating till I find another one.
π: 0 β©: 1
The difference between this and jumping off of a cliff is that you can look down and see the spikes, and look up and see the clouds. Similarly, if you jump off of a cliff, you're not going to float up into the clouds if you've been a good boy. That's a really bad comparison, again, and it doesn't work for your argument.
π: 0 β©: 1
Well what if the spikes are so far down you can't see it?
and you can float up in the clouds for being a good boy.
π: 0 β©: 1
If you think you can fly for being nice, go jump off a cliff and test it. I'll be happily waiting to hear the results of that experiment.
So far down you can't see it? With a cliff, I can drop a rock and count the seconds until I hear the sound of it hitting the spikes. (Then I could calculate that against the acceleration due to the force of earth's gravity on it, which would be approximately 9.8 meters per second per second. That's how I can tell how deep it is.)
That, and if I use a parachute all of a sudden the spikes aren't a problem. Why would I jump off a cliff without one? Your "What if's" are very very strange.
π: 0 β©: 1
I said you could float up for being a good boy...only if God wanted you to...if not you would plummet to your death.
π: 0 β©: 1
So god hasn't wanted people from floating up after jumping off cliffs? He could've saved countless lives that way! God's a dick to humanity.
π: 0 β©: 1
I highly suggest you don't say that...
most people who jump off of cliffs...are suicidal...
π: 0 β©: 1
That's precisely my point! He could've stopped all of those suicides. That, and floating upwards would be hella strange to a cliff diver or base jumper. It's too bad that's never been observed. Anyways, your comparisons are still not convincing.
π: 0 β©: 1
The real question is...what proof do you have backing up your statements about heaven and hellΒ
π: 0 β©: 1
You're the one making the claim, my evidence is the absence of veritable proof for your argument. Nothing exists without proof it exists. (Principle of quantum physics.)
π: 0 β©: 1
You being alive is proof God existsΒ
give me one valid reason why he wouldn't exist
π: 0 β©: 1
<= Prev | | Next =>