You spelled atheism wrong, for that you only get 5.

+6

THE ANSWER IS EROSION, CONTINENTAL DRIFT, THE WATER CYCLE, THE NITROGEN CYCLE, AND MILLIONS OF YEARS

+13

God enhanced them. He has his own studio.

+4

God is a wizard with MS Paint.

+8

I am a wizard with Kid Pix.

+2

That aint legal you know.

+5

And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, and that it was flat: And God divided the light from the darkness by moving the contrast slider up to about seventy percent. Amen.

+14

LOL, U. I almost 1'd this ... glad I waited for the end.

+2

there's a god, but sometimes he forgets about certain people

-1

Apparently he forgot Polend.

+3

not-funny

for all the retards out there, as an fyi: generally, eyes start out as a few photo-sensitive cells; creatures with more of the cells can perceive better and survive to reproduce where others fail. thus it becomes a big ol' smattering of photo-sensitive cells over many thousands of *generations*. the membrane starts to bend to allow more surface area for more light-sensitive cells; and eventually transparent membranes form a sort of lid over these cells etc. lenses come as a result of this later etc.

as someone who has studied both science and religion extensively, I can undoubtedly say the science is what to respect and honor in life. if you are too old to begin to learn modern science, or too stupid, then please, just sit back and do not interfere with those who can.

loses the point when the images are converted down to not-so-high-def 256 color gifs. i'm religious too but still

-13 [show comment][hide comment]

okay trolls, also, Enya is f*cking gay.

-17 [show comment][hide comment]

no she's not. i like enya, it's good music to chill and relax to. (also, no strings attached 5 from your pal [or not pal, i dont care] bauersnarky) also, evolution is a tool used by scientitians, backed in a corner and are in denial of a God

-16 [show comment][hide comment]

I thought Religion was more of a desperate attempt to give life meaning, and a quick cop out answer to explaining things we that we do not understand, but maybe that's just because I'm a pessimist as well as a rational thinker. Blind faith in a God as described by man, is not for me. I'm not closed to the idea that there is another force that made the universe, but it isn't going to be a god manifested from our flawed human minds. A Creator of infinite existence is just too much for us to comprehend imo.

+15

God and science are one. Religious Pluralism and Science ftw.

-15 [show comment][hide comment]

Primarily taking the 'writer's' standpoint in life as a future professor and author, I find it hard to live without the idea of a supreme moral force. I am able to understand and believe in God when I practice creating my own realities in my mind to use within stories. I do not seek to prove him using a banana or my own simple thought processes, but even if there is no proof, I'd rather believe in God than believe in nothing. Whether he be a person or a force or an event.

-5 [show comment][hide comment]

That being said, I believe everything science has to tell us, because science is truth. Truth is God. It is often overlooked that if he is anything great, God is the greatest scientist. I see nothing incompatible between science and the progression of the Universe and it's possible creator. Religion should never center upon proving God, it should center upon our actions amongst other living beings and ourselves. The origin of the Universe and the existence of God are unimportant compared 2 the tempered self

-4 [show comment][hide comment]

Right, like the actions of condemning homosexuals, shunning non-believers, wearing magic underwear, and suicide bombing to screw virgins. Religion sure is great. Clearly, giving your self a moral crutch and feeling warm and fuzzy inside are well worth the downsides of it.

+4

"Right, like the actions of condemning homosexuals, shunning non-believers, wearing magic underwear, and suicide bombing to screw virgins. Religion sure is great. Clearly, giving your self a moral crutch and feeling warm and fuzzy inside are well worth the downsides of it." You're right. Clearly, we should pursue atheism, since it's led to such greats as Stalin, who murdered hundreds of thousands of people. Obviously better. /sarcasm

-4 [show comment][hide comment]

"I believe today that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator. " - Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1 Chapter 2

+14

That's what we call a fallacy, Firebird, because it assumes that religion is the source of all morality. Morality is a product of simple lessons of life and experiences accrued over time and beginning with childhood. If you were raised in the Middle East, you'd likely feel that subjugating women is a perfectly moral thing to do because that's how you'd have been raised, much like how you think it's perfectly OK to talk and pray to your imaginary friend because your deluded parents raised you to do so.

+3

"Right, like the actions of condemning homosexuals, shunning non-believers, wearing magic underwear, and suicide bombing to screw virgins. Religion sure is great." These are things others have done in the name of THEIR religions. This is not MY religion. You have no conception of MY religion but it is not bound to the wrongdoings you list. I am religious pluralist, I believe the best of everything and reject the worst.

Or a non-discriminating bullsh*t believer in other words.

-1

"Or a non-discriminating bullsh*t believer in other words." EXACTLY SIR!

-2

What man religous people fail to see is that their holy books were translated by -people- throughout the years. This may come as a suprise to some, but people are corrupt. Anything written in those texts that sounds wrong, probably is for that reason. Also, religion needs to adapt to survive. Many things taught hundreds of years ago don't really apply to our moden culture. What needs to be taken from religion are the universal ideas dealing with the brotherhood of mankind, not any of the other dumb sh*t.

+1

In short, all religion is trying to say is "Don't be a dick to people and it will pay off in the end."

You sir, are an apologist.

+1

Kill the infidel where he stands

I look out my window and see that second frame every day.

+1

I listen to Enya every day.. wait, that doesn't make me cool.. sh*t

+7

Yes it does. Enya is awesome. Have no shame.

-1

^ agree'd ^

-1

You guys are out of your f*cking mind. You must stop and 'reflect' every time you hear Wild Child in the grocery store, right? Jesus christ.

haha how do you get pissed off about Enya? Of all the things to rage on.

it's due to their lack of small penises, it's scientifically proven that small penis size causes rage against mostly everything

-1

Honestly...Enya, of all people to hate...I looked up to you Goneja...but now, you are nothing to me...

Somewhere, after reading this, the PSA F*ggot Hater is ready to explode with rage at the gayness being presented to me. Go listen to your Celtic ethereal 40-year old woman bullsh*t and leave me alone.

-2

deal

too bad none of us live in places like that

+2

except me (see 1 comment up)

33°26'45.89"N; 111°28'0.00"W The Superstition Mountains. It is said that a German prospector discovered a ton of gold there but no one's ever found it.

+2

When do the Germans share anything? They couldn't even share a wall in the middle of thier capital.

+2

Also, sarcasm lol jk, also c*cks.

+1

Well, the mountains and the lakes and sh*t, that ain't from God; but the digital enhancement, well blimey, if that isn't intelligent design then what is it??

+1

Consider this: digital enhancement of those photos still does not make it look better than the real thing (actually seeing it yourself). Both the digital enhancement of the photos and the original photo are both inferior to seeing the real thing for yourself physically.

Digital enhancement often makes the images look better than the real thing. You must not do much online dating ;)

+5

Online dating is different. Artificially brightening eyes, etc, makes a woman appear more attractive to men. I ask you, what makes a mountain or a landsscape beautiful? Its naturalness and intrinsic, wild qualities which are best captured by the real thing rather than a digitally enhanced photo. A photo is a mere 3-d perception on a 2-d surface. The real thing is 3-d and interactable. Not to mention, a lot more of your senses are stimulated whne you see the real thing (smell, touch, hear, etc).

I would also like to mention on a digressional note that all those pictures of the cosmos and galaxies are not real colour. Artists have selected colours that they think that make the galaxies look aethestically good.

(they are in greyscale)

-1

I agree completely. I hiked through Redwood National Park a few months ago and I was blown away with how inadequate pictures were for conveying the scale and majesty of the experience. Of course, that just means that they are very old and very big - not that they were built by an invisible landscape architect.

+3

Invisible landscapers from Mexico?

Evolution made it look beautiful.

-2

no it didnt

-2

wow, evolution has nothing to do with the planetary formation process. both are completely separate science fields

+9

Boo... you needs to be edjumicated on evolutions and such.

+5

He didn't say biological evolution, did he?

ive seen that resort on the island on Kent Hrbek Outdoors once

lol enhanced

-1

Well played.

But you just told us to appreciate beauty for it's own sake man! Beauty doesn't have to suck for it to be beauty, that's the whole point!

1. Yes 2. Yes 3. Millions of years of evolution Nice pictures though...

-3

right... theres so much evidence against evolution. i mean, take the human eye for example. is it even POSSIBLE at ALL for something like that to be made by chance mutations? no. i mean, theres over a million sensors from the eye itself that have to grow and connect themselves to their neural counterparts when babies are developing (which thousands of babies are born every day) and people f*cking throw a tickertape parade when builders connect a tunnel from two sides of a mountain. macroevolution is total

-8 [show comment][hide comment]

bullsh*t. microevolution on the other hand, thats possible. species producing different variations of themselves over time, such as birds producing different birds, like ones with bigger beaks, different colors, etc., purebred dogs, and even in humans where blacks produce blacks, asians produce asians, whites produce whites, and and and and and. the list goes on. but thats adaptation to surroundings, not species changing into different species, like dinosaurs turning into birds. since when has a human given

-7 [show comment][hide comment]

birth to anything other than a human? if evolution were true, wouldnt all men have 8 inch dicks and all women have larger bosoms? theres no such thing as a 'missing link' between humans and apes. i can provide sources that prove all the 'missing links' ever found were bone fragments of either humans, or prehistoric horses or pigs. if evolution were indeed true, wouldnt humans have experienced at least SOME noticeable change over the thousands and thousands of years of our existence? looks like we havent.

-8 [show comment][hide comment]

other than changes due to health, technology, and knowledge, there hasnt been any change in the many thousands of years of our inhabitance. if nothing has happened in that long amount of time, then life obviously didnt spontaneously generate from a primordial ooze pool millions of years ago. everybody should have learned that in 7th grade science class, that spontaneous generation is a crock of sh*t. evolution is a flawed and inaccurate theory, and shouldn't even exist. i mean, Darwin himself even said that

-6 [show comment][hide comment]

"Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?...But, as by the theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?" he honestly believed that these fossilized links would be found embedded in the earth at a later date. it's a THEORY,

-8 [show comment][hide comment]

people, not a scientific law. thats like me saying that i theorize that the entire universe is encapsulated in a plastic easter egg, and i rely heavily that scientists may one day find my theory to be true. it's bullsh*t, and so is what people believe evolution is. it's not true, and shouldnt even be mentioned in science literature. a supernatural being HAD to have created Life (in this case i believe God did), not time and spontenaity from a slurry of miscellaneous elements. so for your comment, you get a

-7 [show comment][hide comment]

-1 from me, Diezl.

-3

also lol, heated response

-2

baeur, take your flawed preachings somewhere else. Why don't you do some research on evolution before trying to point out flaws in the theory. the human eye argument repeated by priests just gives me a head ache. they are not 'chance' mutations, or 'by accident' as they usually like to say. It's a Long process of addapttion, probably starting with a simple abbility to sense heat or light. And don't say "It's a THEORY" as an argument. It makes you look like an idiot. I bet you believe in gravity, you

+2

know that's just a THEORY? or the THEORY that the earth revolves around the sun? a Theory is not a GUESS. It requires research, and EVIDENCE, to be accepted in the scientific community (which religion has nothing of the sort). Evolution is a reality, and religion has done nothing but hold society and science back.

+1

don't like the eye argument, eh? (although you did say 'probably,' which means you dont know and dont have support for that claim that the eye formed from adaptation from light and heat which begs the question of how the ability to see came from the prebio pool.) anyway, what about honey and the bees that produce them? what about dolphins somehow producing the ability of echolocation? yep, all by some strange chance. or what about the f*cking brain? which according to the smithsonian is the "most complex

-5

and orderly arrangement of matter in the Universe." or what about the all the components of sex? or how intricate the liver works? or even human psychology for that matter and all the various nuances of it? what about cuckoo birds? or beavers? or geckos with their ability to adhere to the molecular structure of objects they make contact with? all by chance right. you said that "Evolution is a reality, and religion has done nothing but hold society and science back." so, i ask you, what evidence do you have

-5

that supports this claim? darwin himself doubted is own theory, and you take it to be fact, just as the sh*tty schools you (and all of us) attended hoped you would.

-4

also, you spelled my name wrong

-5

I could go into A HUGE rant about evidence supporting evolution, but I know you would just use your non- falsifiable Bullsh#t logic to try and contradict me. I've argued with people like you before. I know nothing I say will make you even consider the possibility of evolution. You may act like you wish to be convinced (like any proper skeptic), but the fact that you believe religion shows me that 'evidence' is meaningless to you.

+2

All those exaples you gave are just showing what evolution leads to over billions of years. Even if Darwin had doubted his theory later in life (which I have heard is nothing more than a myth), he lived in a time when the evidence supporting evolution was low. the advances in science, and the discoveries we have made since have made this theory undeniable in the mind of any intelligent person. I am not insulting your intelligence, or calling you an idiot, just saying you are being naive and ignorant.

+1

^ ROFL ^

And I find the fact you said "so, i ask you, what evidence do you have " appallingly Hypocrytical. I could just go your route and say, "I have faith", and you couldn't touch me. But I would rather believe in something for it's credability. I am an athiest, and I am also a skeptic, so I will not say there is no posibility of a god or higher power, but the fact that there is nothing more than claims without a shred of proof to back them up, gives me my doubts.

and seeing that you fived this ytmnd, I think you missed the point. Why don't you check out that link in the description

Evolution is anything but random. If you think otherwise you are miseducated.

who the hell do you think you are, trying to tell me what to vote on sites i view. what if i liked the pretty pictures hmm? f*ck off

+2

You guys are still stuck in the teenage version of "Debating God", which essentially argues over "probability theory" to somehow prove or disprove God. Neither side is convincing because "chance" is not the sole-property of theism or atheism.

-1

This is probably massive lolz for anyone learning Biology in school right now.

Bauersnarky: you are ignorant, arrogant in your beliefs, and you contradict yourself by assuming certain things as fact (some of which is supported by evolutionists like micro-evolution). It's obvious you lack the education to make these claims. You bash others for not supporting scientific theories but then you refuse to back up anything you say yourself. Also OriginalHibbs, I think you might be agnostic, not atheist. I am pretty sure Atheism is believing God cannot exist.

+1

Athiesm is believing god does not exist. I don't think I will ever be convinced theres a invisible magic man in the sky. But as a skeptic I have to agknowledge that it is not impossible. just as it is not impossible that theres an invisible pink unicorn. If undeniable evidence were given to support either, I would be inclined to believe it. but that's not the case. Don't think for a second that I am agnostic

+1

OriginalHibbs is right. You don't need to prove that gods don't exist to be an athiest, just like you don't need to have concusive proof that Bigfoot or Poseidon don't exist. The burden of proof is on the ones claiming existence. To quote Bertrand Russell:

+1

If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense.

+1

If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.

+1

The eyeball excuse is stupid and heres why. Everything that you see is relative. If we hadn't evolved to process the way light bounces off objects the way we do now we would have evolved to process the light reflection in some other way. To assume that the way we see everything is the way everything actually exists is naive.

+1

I actually utilize another definition of atheism. It's not quite right, but I like it. Goes like this: You CAN'T prove God is real, nor can you know for sure what his desires are. You cannot even know if he desires your worship. It is not only pointless but definitively insane to base one's actions on the unknowable whims of a being whose existence cannot even be proven. While God may or may not exist, one should act on only what is known or plausible, and wait for death to see who's right.

Without science, we wouldn't have modern technology.

and thus, we would not have these awesome images that were digitally enhanced to get your point across.

We aslo would not have the internets... I loves me some technologies

Darwin Digitally Enhanced Them. Pfft....

Atheism FTW!!! youtube.com/patcondell

-1 for enya

What about ironic enya?

I'd hit Enya! Enya ftw (albeit a very tranquil win, lol)

+1

I loll'ed

you forgot to include sean connery

1 for lack of sean connery

-3

What the f*ck does is that supposed to mean?

There, I posted. Vote five now please.

+1

That's what we call a fallacy, Firebird, because it assumes that religion is the source of all morality. Morality is a product of simple lessons of life and experiences accrued over time and beginning with childhood. If you were raised in the Middle East, you'd likely feel that subjugating women is a perfectly moral thing to do because that's how you'd have been raised, much like how you think it's perfectly OK to talk and pray to your imaginary friend because your deluded parents raised you to do so.

+1

how do i get rid of that damned text that keeps popping up on the photos

+1

lollers

pfffft, awesome ending lol!

Good stuff

INTERNET FIGHTZ LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

+1

ROFL ROFL

Ahahaha. I was so expecting to be goatse'd on the last frame, but this was way better. :0)

+2

Bauersnark, You say the spontaneous generation of life is complete bullsh*t. But if life could never be generated, how could it exist? Now here's where you say god created life. So that means that God spontaneously generated life right? You see, we both believe in spontaneous generation of life, the only difference is, you believe that there has to be some kind of supernatural component to it, whereas most people do not (because they're not morons).

+2

It's still life from a living being. Creation says nonliving doesn't come from living, and that, if you'll check your scientific history, has been debunked numerous times.

-1

And now apply that logic to your god and realize you're an idiot.

atheist f*g here. Science can explain all this but you Christ f*gs can have fun with your false hope.

Make the heart of this people calloused; make their ears dull and close their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts, and turn and be healed. Isaiah 6:10

pffffft.

leave your bible quotes at your bible-get-togethers

-1

pfffffft.

5 for truth

-1

I call photoshop

+1

lol i love the NEDM at the end

-2

this comment is better than the ytmnd

We think things are beautiful because our minds evolved to accept the imagery. If you thought everything was ugly, you'd go insane.

+1

bullsh*t

-1

The ending was a saving grace. Also, pretty.

Also c*cks.

Me until the end: "Is he serious? No way, no f*cking way, he can't be serious. Serious? No, no, I should wait till the end."

+3

Rational arguments please.

lol jack handy-escque

+1

I HAVE THE ANSWER.. GOD IS HDR Photography Sites

You troll. You start a heated religion debate for the lulz.

DRUGS ARE GOOD FOR YOU

[insert long-assed and pointless essay on personal religious/anti-religious beliefs that nobody really cares about]

You've convinced me! I now accept Jesus Christ into my heart as my personal Lord and Saviour!

-2

Grownups with imaginary friends.

The judgment that something is beautiful is nothing but the claim that something appears designed though it may lack practical function. This appearance of design and unity in nature brings us to reject chance as a possible cause and we infer that there is a unified, perfect, mighty, wise, and self-sufficient Being behind that beauty. This may give us hope, but it cannot prove with certainty the existence of such a being. For that, we require a necessary being with all-embracing reality, which in turn must be shown necessarily exist.

Beauty is something I call "optimal stimulation." When you see just the "right" colors, a pianist hits just the "right" chords, or get just the "right" amount of salt out of a potato chip: that's beauty. It's not the perception of design in nature. That arises from the oft-unrealized notion that we would design Nature like that if it were up to us: to provide ourselves with optimal stimulation in order to maximize emotional highs.

So porn, right?

+6

Yeah, porn.

+2

Design on a fundamental level, is connected with the attempt to produce the "right effect" either sensually or otherwise. Your first example is certainly the sort of thing we would only be willing to attribute to design while your second is an object of design (engaged in by the Pringles factory daily). In addition, I never claimed that we are actually seeing design. No, we never see the property of design itself. I claimed that we experience the appearance of design whose truth is contingent upon a designer and- if it is to be anything more than a contingent product of human judgment -must be proven aside from the appearance.

shazam

Amazing

lol

The second picture is the superstition mountains, i can see that from my backyard here in arizona. PS god dosent exist.

+1

probably the worst picture of the lot.

+1

Made me laugh.

The twist at the end gave you +3 points.

+1

Goneja's having that time of the month again. Do you have a HDR image of the red tides?

I hope you don't mind but Im not voting on this.

lol americans , just because you do not want to be governed by god/bible does not mean you believe in absolutly nothing.

+1

LOL, thats awesome

UNDENIABLE PROOF. But, no Danson?

lolz@creationists.

+3

Yeah. I about 1'd you too except for the end.

+1

Beautiful pix. God is amazing! He's a photoshop king!

+1

This looks shopped.

I hope that's sarcastic.

You forgot to show the pictures of poverty, death, killing, and suffering.

I get it now. I guess I took it too seriously from the beginning.

I hope you used Enya for parody. Enya (and Tori Amos) is the go-to music of choice for girls in intro video classes. Boys [ab]use Daft Punk and Aphex Twin.

Beautiful pics, though photoshopped, who isn't these days?! Enya ftw... u can't have scenery w/o Enya

Enya = Proof God doesn't exist.

Also, c*cks