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
this post was submitted on 03 Apr 2026
159 points (99.4% liked)
PhilosophyMemes
542 readers
213 users here now
Memes must be related to phil.
The Memiverse:
!90s_memes@quokk.au
!y2k_memes@quokk.au
!sigh_fi@quokk.au
founded 7 months ago
MODERATORS
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.
load more comments
(1 replies)
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
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!
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?
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.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
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.
load more comments
(2 replies)
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.
load more comments
(2 replies)
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 require 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.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
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!
He’s got a point, but somehow mucked it up.
Atheism is faith without proof that there is no god. So atheism, too, is a religious belief.
You can’t have faith in the non-existence of something. That is the default state of all concepts.
It has nothing to do with faith in a deity.
It’s a belief that no such thing could exist without having any actual confirmation.
No. That’s not how anything works. The maker of a claim must provide the proof.
Take the Invisible Pink Unicorn, which is standing right behind you right now. You are not an anti-unicornist because you think I’m full of shit.
load more comments
(11 replies)
It's true that all beliefs are a leap of faith to some degree. I would have difficulty stating a belief that "there is no fly in this room" simply because I have not detected it. I am fly-agnostic.
It is also however true, that we can dismiss without proof anything that is alleged without proof. If you tell me there is a fly but I cannot find it, I need not subscribe to fly-agnosticism to presume you were mistaken!
The lack of proof about the existence of something is very different from believing in something without proof.
I believe unicorns don't exist because there is no proof they do. That is not a "religious" belief in the sense of "I choose to believe they don't exist and I don't need or want proof". If such proof were to be provided, I will happily reconsider my position.
I personally wouldn't even say I believed in them if they were proven to exist. I would state that I understand – or know – that they do.
load more comments
(2 replies)
Atheism does not profess any such faith. The null hypothesis is always presumed correct unless evidence is presented for the alternative hypothesis. Non-existence is kind of the ontological null hypothesis for basically everything, going all the way back to "I think therefore I am." From there we have entire branches of philosophy which deal with the nature of perception, knowledge and truth which leads us to several ideas for inferring "existence" through various combinations of observation and reasoning.
Famously though, influential modernists like Kant and Hegel and Hume all tried to reform the idea of "God" into a question of the abstract rather than the concrete, which leads into a much more interesting semantic conversation. Eg, like you can say the phenomenonical unicorn exists because we understand the abstraction without needing to observe it directly. But at the same time, we can say that nobody has ever observed the material Unicorn, or "unicorn in itself." Likewise, atheists can acknowledge God as an abstract concept which has real moral and metaphysical implications, while understanding that there is no evidence of material existence.
It is not an act of faith to conclude that the requisite parameters for a claim are not met.
If a claim requires the laws of thermodynamics to be broken, then until an additional law is proven and replicated as an exception to the existing laws, then I would conclude that the aforementioned claim is false.
Incorrect. Theism is the belief. The "a" in front creates a counter, the opposite.
It's a complete lack of faith or belief.
Atheism is the default state.
Do you not believe in the Easter bunny? Because there has to be an Easter bunny for you to believe in.
See how unsound that argument is?
Having faith without proof is the nuance. Atheism is everyone's default state until they're indoctrinated by a religion or belief system.
This is hilarious, thanks
load more comments
(6 replies)
Yay!!! Santa!!!
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?
view more: next ›