okay i don’t believe in unicorns, centaurs and fauns, so they exist too? that’s such a stupid statement, undone in a single sentence, kthxbye
Personally, I don’t believe in bunnies made of marshmallow living on the moon.
I don’t believe there is a suitcase full with money under my bed.
Edit: fuck
It was worth a shot
i hope the Artemis 2 crew takes pictures of them soon!
I’d rather they photograph the nazis on the dark side of the moon so we can track those fuckers.
They moved to the White House.
Yeah, we got lots of photos of those assholes.
But there is overwhelming evidence (read: an existing myth) for two of those three criteria
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?
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!
He should have stuck to cocaine. That’s dumb too but at least he wouldn’t say something like that because he couldn’t accept any gods next to himself
A more respectable profession.
Except for those who snitch on their dealers.
Athiests don’t exist.
Atheists, on the other hand…
I’m only real when I jerk off with my other hand. got it.
check mate theists.
What’s more real? One kid in your arms or 10000 on one hand? Who knows? Who’s to say?
I’m the most athiest of all!
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 funniest thing about this photo is the look on his face, like he’s thinks he’s really onto something here
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.
For me, the main issue of being a believer or an atheist is the fact that we can’t even agree on what God actually is. Is it a bearded dude in the sky, is it the universe, is it an entity out of space and time, is it the friends we made along the way ?
That’s why I’m agnostic, you can’t be certain whether a God exists or not if you can’t define it. And in the end, it probably doesn’t even matter anyway, why would something like that even consider your existence.
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.
I think you’re over-thinking it and giving him more credit than he deserves.
If you tell me you don’t believe there is a unicorn in the next room, that in no way shape or form implies anything about whether you believe unicorns exist at all.
If you tell me you don’t believe unicorns exist at all, that only means you agree the concept of a unicorn exists…
If you tell me Tim Allen is a bigger tool than anything Binford ever made, well you would be correct.
Not that I disagree with anything you said, but… it is the internet… and so I’d like to suggest that willful ignorance might be considered active belief. ;-)
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!
What is “Begging the question”?
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 ;-)
Jfc the man played Santa Claus. He’s all about the fictional characters. Why would anyone with more than 2 brain cells give him an ounce of credibility?
Yay!!! Santa!!!
Well, there has to be a TimAllenGrunt.mp3 for you not to believe in.
deleted by creator
