Memes must be related to phil.
The Memiverse:
!90s_memes@quokk.au
!y2k_memes@quokk.au
!sigh_fi@quokk.au
Mandatory relevant Douglas Adams:
"I refuse to prove that I exist,'" says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing." "But," says Man, "The Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED." "Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.
Every time I see a Douglas Adams quote, it brings me back to the joy I felt discovering him about 35 years ago. Thanks!
Hey Tim!
Do you believe in the flying spaghetti monster?
No?
So, that means it does exist for you to not believe in it, right? Or are you just some no-talent has-been who needs to stop speaking in public?
There has to be a monster under my bed for me not to believe in it.
Monster here. I'm tired. Could you stop not believing in me so I can cease to exist, please?
The incorrect assumption here is that disbelief is an active state. Denouncment and denial may be active states of thought, but disbelief is a passive state. Like the way that on and off are an active and passive state, respectively. The argument that disbelief implies the denial of something that therefore must exist to be denied at all is inherently flawed by this assumption. If I, being in a state of ignorance of subject "x", would have neither belief nor disbelief in "x", but total unawareness of "x"s potential existence as a subject. To then be told by an outside perspective that "x" exists and I must believe in that existence without any proof of the claimed state of "x", I could choose to continue without further consideration of "x" and my existence would continue without belief or disbelief in "x", only knowledge of that concept existing for outside perspectives. However, I could more easily explain this reasoning to others with the simple statement "I do not believe in "x"." My statement would be reductive and simplistic, yes, but would do nothing to prove that "x" must exist and hold my belief because I have any knowledge of its concept.
The claim must be proven by the one making it, not the one being told of it.
He really thinks he's the smartest person in the room because he made a once popular tv show and several funny movies, doesn't he. I believe he should go back to grunting and tools, at least he made sense then
I remember feeling weird about Home Improvement as a kid/teen during its original run. It had its funny moments, but then it also had stupid shit, like a debate about whether men or women were better, with Tim's argument winning because women didn't invent/discover as many things as men did. I remember yelling at the screen, "Of course women didn't do those things, because men have been holding women back for thousands of years!"
Young-me was just pissed because Tim made a stupid argument that could be used by idiot boys next time they wanted to dismiss me or other girls. I thought it was a mistake. Adult-me is pissed because now I can see that he was a bigot all along. The omission of women's plight wasn't a mere overlook of history, but a point that Tim would've never addressed on his show in the first place. Suppression of inconvenient facts is probably baked into his brain by now.
Men also took credit for women's discoveries and inventions too.
Marie Curie has entered the chat Grace Hopper has entered the chat Hedy Lamar, Ada Lovelace, Mary Shelley.... You get the idea.
Baked brain is fairly observant lol! Wondering exactly what he ever invented...
Marie Curie has entered the chat Grace Hopper has entered the chat Hedy Lamar, Ada Lovelace, Mary Shelley… You get the idea.
Markdown has entered the chat to politely remind that you should leave two spaces at the end of each line or hit enter twice ;-)
From my perspective, the argument for the existence of a god has always had one fatal flaw: in all of our human discoveries that were once attributed to a god or gods, none of them actually required a god to make them happen.
Is it possible that there is some kind of being that created our reality? Sure. But how do we recognize that? Where are the moments that only a god could accomplish? If we want to prove that God was responsible for an event, we must first consider if the event could happen without a god. Every time I have looked at a question from that perspective, no gods were required. That is why I do not believe.
Is it possible that there is some kind of being that created our reality?
If a being created everything, what created that being?
If that being sprang into existence, then it would be simpler for the universe to have sprung into existence without that extra step.
Oh I have theory that came to me in a dream. But it bat shit crazy. I need write it in a story then maybe it make sense.
The funniest thing about this photo is the look on his face, like he's thinks he's really onto something here
I don't appreciate some of you being so flippant with one of the greatest minds of our time, Tim Allen. I, for one, appreciate him weighing in on the toughest questions we wrestle with.
He's like a modern day Descartes!
Yay!!! Santa!!!
I think the issue I consistently see in discussions surrounding theism and atheism is the definition of what it means to be agnostic vs atheist. The way I see it, there are generally five “buckets” of belief most people fit into; theist, agnostic theist, agnostic, agnostic atheist, and atheist.
In the most technical sense atheist means “a lack of belief.” But some people use it to mean a disbelief in a god, or in other words a belief there is no god. Other people use it in the technical sense, but rarely does someone clarify which use they actually mean.
So for clarity and ease of communication, I think it would make sense to use the fives states of belief above as follows:
Theist: believes there is a god.
Agnostic theist: does not hold a belief in a god, but lives as though there is one.
Agnostic: does not hold a belief or disbelief in a god.
Agnostic atheist: does not hold a belief in a god, and lives as though there is not one.
Atheist/antitheist: believes that there is no god.
Obviously I don’t expect others to enter a conversation already using that framework, and it will probably never become a common framework, but when I read comments online and someone says they are an atheist, the first thing I try to do is determine if they are an agnostic or antitheist atheist.