Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 2/27/14 10:01 PM, The-Great-One wrote: I was wondering if those who have commented could comment in my thread entitled Growing Up In Your Family. I want to know why people are religious or not religious and how, why, or if they transitioned to atheism or religion.

I've obliged your request.

I was raised in an Orthodox Christian family. My mom is a very religious woman and I sort of took after her religious inclination in my younger days. I came to question my faith in Christianity shortly after I turned 17. Some of the things that Jesus Christ said just didn't make sense to me; it was irrational. One thing led to another after realizing that the Bible isn't completely perfect and over a couple of months the questions I had about my faith and my inability to find answers to them completely eroded my faith in Christianity. The following year, I realized that it didn't make sense to believe in God at all. I've been an atheist ever since.

At 2/26/14 06:07 AM, SteveGuzzi wrote: I have a few questions for the 'weak' atheists here. The ones who say they don't believe but claim that they're open to the idea (if only there were evidence!) .

What, to you, exactly constitutes evidence for something like God? And beyond evidence, what would constitute irrefutable proof?

Logical proof(In the form of philosophical argument) of God's existence would be nice. Or better yet, God himself appearing to me or to the entire world.
More importantly, WHY do you think those things would serve as valid evidence or proof of God?
It's pretty self-evident.

I don't care to convert anyone. I ask you because you probably haven't honestly asked yourself.

As a philosophy major, I have asked this question to myself on at least several occasions.

I ask you because I think you're a bit more dishonest and biased than you let on.

I'm not being dishonest or biased(Not anymore biased than what is normal, I guess). If you doubt what weak atheists such as myself believe, then that's your problem.

I suspect you either can't answer the above, or, your answers would closely resemble those that theists already give (and you already shoot down as insufficient).

I've provided the answers you seek. I suppose you'll liken them to what theists would want atheists to provide in order to disprove God or something. Oh well. It might just be similar.

I'm trying to imagine a scenario where you guys would NOT do the same exact thing that you accuse the other side of doing -- ignoring evidence, moving the goalposts, et cetera -- and I'm having a hard time coming up with one.

If it makes you feel better, I have no vested interest in being an atheist. The idea that God exists doesn't trouble me at all, so I think you'd be hard-pressed to believe that someone like me would ignore solid evidence of God's existence if it were presented to me. I'd simply become a theist. Nothing else would change in my life.

The reason we often accuse theists of ignoring the evidence or ignoring the flaws in their arguments is that many, but not all of them, have an extremely powerful vested interest in maintaining their faith in God. Such faith acts as a support system for those people, something to comfort them in their darkest hour. They're often religious too and feel extremely uncomfortable with the idea that their most powerful convictions may just be wrong.

I, on the other hand, won't really give a shit if I'm presented with sufficient evidence that God exists. It'll be interesting. I'll change my mind about the matter and that's all that'll happen.

I'll be pretty bummed out, though if I somehow find out that the Christian God exists since he is an evil, powerful, and hateful entity.

...

I get it. You like solid, quantifiable, unambiguous things.

But what exactly are you seeking to quantify?

What is its unit of measure?

Huh?

At 2/25/14 08:53 PM, leanlifter1 wrote:

At 2/25/14 08:46 PM, Light wrote:

I don't really see a point in having a discussion with you over anything if you refuse to consider the evidence brought forth by your opponents.

First off you did not bring "evidence" forth that states that the teachings of Buddha condone violence.

Jesus Christ, you're dense.

I never said I brought forth evidence concerning that. I was actually alluding to the earlier debate we had about the definitions of atheism. Everyone else on this board agreed with me in stating that there are different kinds of atheism and you basically held your hands over your ears and said "la la la la I can't hear you!", refusing to consider the flaws in your argument.

I know you'll be tempted to respond in that distinctly asinine way of yours to what I just said and I just want to say that I won't be responding back to whatever you say if you say it. You're too certain of the rightness of your position to consider the possibility that you might just be wrong or even that the answer is more nuanced than you want to believe. That's probably why no one on this forum respects your opinion, to be honest. You don't seem to care about the facts, proper logical reasoning, or even examining the evidence your opponents try to bring to your attention. There's a reason I said earlier in this thread that I'd rather debate theists here and not you, an atheist. You suck at having serious and smart discussions with people here, lol.

At 2/25/14 07:28 PM, leanlifter1 wrote:

At 2/25/14 07:03 PM, Light wrote:

At 2/25/14 06:51 PM, Angry-Hatter wrote:

At 2/25/14 04:22 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: Budda does not condone violence.

Much like no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge, right?

So many fallacies, so little time.

Instead of claiming fallacies why not try and back up your standing ?

Every time I do that, you refuse to listen like a stubborn and petulant child.

I don't really see a point in having a discussion with you over anything if you refuse to consider the evidence brought forth by your opponents.

At 2/25/14 06:51 PM, Angry-Hatter wrote:

At 2/25/14 04:22 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: Budda does not condone violence.

Much like no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge, right?

So many fallacies, so little time.

I got one of those messages and kindly told the person who sent it to fuck off.

In any case, Scarface(Or any other NG user), if you feel lonely, you can always talk to me. I like helping people in anyway I can, so if that means making people feel less lonely, I'll be happy to oblige your request to talk to me. ;)

At 2/20/14 11:06 AM, Angry-Hatter wrote:

Honestly Light, this is starting to look like a lost cause. How do you reach someone who posts links that irrefutably disprove his own position, yet insists that they actually prove his case? I'm done trying to explain simple distinctions to this character, as he has proven time and time again that he is incomprehending in the face of nuance. If you'd like to keep flogging that dead horse, I wish you the best of luck.

Yeah, I'll join you in giving up on this "debate."

I'd rather debate some theists to be very honest.

lol, thanks aviewaskewed for taking Tankdown to task for lumping all atheists together as if they were the same. It's pure lunacy to think weak atheists are no different from strong atheists.

It saves me the trouble of having to type up a lengthy rebuttal myself. :P

And in regards to leanlifter1, you need to know that there are different kinds of atheism, just as there are different kinds of Christianity, buddhism, etc. If you can't get that through your head, there's not much more I can do for you.

Angry-Hatter pretty much stated what I was going to say in response to your post, leanlifter1. Thanks Angry-Hatter. :P

leanlifter, you didn't read the material you linked me to, did you?

My politician didn't know he was receiving gifts from a sketchy corporate lobbyist. Your politician is a corporate-sell-out-nazi.

At 2/18/14 12:59 AM, leanlifter1 wrote:

At 2/18/14 12:43 AM, Light wrote:

At 2/18/14 12:03 AM, leanlifter1 wrote:

At 2/17/14 11:35 PM, Light wrote:

So, what do you have to say to the definitions of atheism that I have listed and my rebuttal in general?

There is not multiple definitions of Atheism it means one whom does not believe in any .

a·the·ism [ey-thee-iz-uhm] noun 1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God. 2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

There are multiple definitions of atheism. The dictionary agrees with me here. Sorry to nitpick, but philosophically speaking, there are different kinds of atheism.

Nope there is not. You are incorrect. Replace the words God/s and supreme being with deity. There are many words for God but atheism means you are without faith in any God, supreme being, deity, Allah, Buddha, Thor, Zeus etc.

I just linked you to a dictionary website that listed two definitions for atheism. Other dictionary websites also have two or more definitions.

If you're seriously denying that there are multiple definitions of atheism, then you might just have a double-digit IQ, son.

At 2/18/14 12:03 AM, leanlifter1 wrote:

At 2/17/14 11:35 PM, Light wrote:

So, what do you have to say to the definitions of atheism that I have listed and my rebuttal in general?

There is not multiple definitions of Atheism it means one whom does not believe in any .

a·the·ism [ey-thee-iz-uhm] noun 1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God. 2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

There are multiple definitions of atheism. The dictionary agrees with me here. Sorry to nitpick, but philosophically speaking, there are different kinds of atheism.

At 2/17/14 04:30 PM, NightmareWitch wrote:

At 2/17/14 04:24 PM, Light wrote: atheism

I'm gonna put you in the "I used to be theist/religious" category.

I was once a very religious person. Now, I am not.

So, what do you have to say to the definitions of atheism that I have listed and my rebuttal in general?

Jesus Christ, saying that science is bad or immoral because some individuals throughout history have used it maliciously is like saying that all knives should be banned because people sometimes get stabbed by them.

I'd post a lengthy rebuttal to your flimsy argument, but aviewaskewed and Angry-Hatter have beaten me to the punch and are doing an excellent job of it.

At 2/17/14 03:12 PM, NightmareWitch wrote:

At 2/17/14 01:14 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: Atheism means one has no faith in a God/s.

It believes there are no gods.. which is a faith.

There are two different kinds of atheism: strong atheism and weak atheism.

1. Strong atheism asserts that no God exists. You can say that this is a faith-based statement.

2. Weak atheism makes no claim as to whether God exists or not, but people who are weak atheists state that they don't believe in Him. They don't claim to believe that God doesn't exist. They just withhold belief in his existence because they don't think there's sufficient evidence to justify such a belief.

I'm certain that most atheists are weak atheists, so, in that regard, it's simply wrong to state or imply that most atheists subscribe to some sort of faith.

Even if most atheists positively asserted that God doesn't exist, this doesn't mean that your beliefs are any more justified than theirs. You're just as blind in your faith as you claim to think or imply that strong atheists are. Simply put, you're not in a better position than they are, philosophically speaking. Don't ever delude yourself in to thinking that you are.

At 2/17/14 09:28 AM, NightmareWitch wrote:

At 2/15/14 06:46 PM, Tankdown wrote: Why do certain radical atheists hate religion in general, and protests they are separate from religious beliefs instead of acknowledging different religious beliefs?

Atheism is one of the few faiths that does not have moral codes or accountability.. religion usually means you have to sacrifice a lot of personal freedoms for a goal larger than yourself..

Atheism(At least weak atheism anyway) isn't a faith, so you have no idea what you're talking about.

At 2/9/14 08:18 PM, ChopstickClock wrote: Better to show them they're wrong by beating them, rather than act like a bunch of whiny assholes and let them get gold unopposed in every event, wouldn't you say?

Use your heads.

My thoughts exactly. Boycotting has never accomplished anything in the history of the Olympics in regards to substantive policy change; history has shown us that. Boycotting the Sochi Olympics would've been an exercise in futility.

I oppose Russia's homophobic laws just as much as any other reasonable person, but I realize that it's best not to politicize the Olympics. Furthermore, boycotting the Olympics unfairly harms many athletes who worked very hard to participate in the winter games. As ChopstickClock said before, it's best to let the athletes compete and not politicize this event.

Hopefully, at least one gay athlete wins a gold medal at the Winter Olympics.

At 2/9/14 10:57 AM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 2/9/14 01:20 AM, Light wrote: Evolution is fact. We observe it all of the time.

Blah blah blah. Another person being incredibly sloppy, Can't you all actually analyze a situation?

I do.

Evolution in a small form has been proven because it has been visualized. The larger theory of evolution stating that human evolved from single celled organisms has NOT been proven.

For someone who implicitly claims to be better at analyzing the situation and not being sloppy, you're not being very analytical and you're being quite sloppy.

I never said that humans evolving from single celled organisms has been completely proven. The existence of the mechanisms of evolution is what is indisputable, not all of the facts pertaining to it. I even said this in my earlier post, saying something along the lines of "not all particulars of the Theory of Evolution are proven in certain situations."

You're usually more careful than that, Camaro.

Seriously people. You're claiming to be on the scientific side yet you can't even get this right. There is a HUGE difference between mountains and mountains of evidence indicating something, and that one piece of evidence (or chain of evidence) that definitively proves it.

I don't want to be pedantic, but I must reiterate that in the context of this thread and the "debate" creationists have with evolution, they refuse to believe most, if not all of the Theory of Evolution, not some of the particulars of the theory. I've only contended in this thread that they are wrong for challenging the existence of these mechanisms. If they only challenged exactly how and when humans diverged from their relatives or something related, that would be somewhat acceptable, but they challenge the existence of macroevolution and the heart of the Theory of Evolution, which is a fact, period. That's a problem. What you mentioned about humans and single celled organisms is just the application of the theory, not the heart of it. I hope you understand that before you go any further here.

Evolution has been proved far beyond a reasonable doubt, yet it has not been 100% proven. There are ways that our current view of evolution, or our evolutionary history, can be completely dismantled without including a mistake or misinterpretation.

And I took that into account, lol. I also know that the Theory of Evolution is still falsifiable. All good scientific theories are.

It's OK to treat it as fact, or believe it is fact, but to outright state it is fact is wrong.

Again, natural selection(What Darwin called "descent by modification") IS a fact. The existence of beneficial mutations enhancing the reproductive success of a species is known fact. The basics are right and any scientist will tell you that.

What you and I agree on is that in regard to the particulars of the theory in certain scenarios, there is much to be learned, such as when and how exactly did which animals evolve from what and how RNA and DNA came to be.

I know I am splitting hairs here, but if you're going to try and take the high road, dammit, you're going to do it right.

I did do it right. I'm very mindful of the fact that there are a lot of unanswered questions about the Theory of Evolution in the field of biology, but I'm also aware that it's considered one of the strongest theories in the field of science. My problem is that creationists and intelligent design advocates crassly dismiss this theory for nonscientific reasons, not that they only accept 90% of the theory and challenge the remaining 10% regarding when exactly so-and-so occurs and under what circumstances. At most, they accept, like, 10% of the theory or something and that usually means they accept just "microevolution" and not "macroevolution" or the process of speciation in general.

At 2/6/14 04:28 PM, Tankdown wrote:
The offered reading does a better job than me. Based on your own ideology I cannot continue that you failed to convince me. Also I am not convince you can understand as we are not on the same level. Not saying I am smarter than you, rather that we have different values.

lol, OK then.

I showed you how it works. Everyone knows how they work. But for some reason, you say I'm wrong. lol.

?

Everyone also knows religion, and you haven't shown me anything. I have to walk around talking to scientists to be shown anything. This is only your word; which seems to be the highest authority in your mind.

Reason and the facts are the highest authorities in my mind, buddy.

And it's "only my word"? Google the scientific method and the way scientific consensus works and you'll see that I'm right.

From studying for a degree in mathematics I found the scientific community very careful about the usage of double negatives. Only when dealing with absolutes when one side fails to prove when the other side is accepted as proof. Normally called as "proof by contradiction." The method however in the vaccine example doesn't rely on two absolutes. It relies on scientific probabilities. Science proves to whatever is tested to be real. Since the vaccine example only shows an estimate. At best it's opposite is approved by an estimate. There is no proof.

lol what?

You're not making sense at all, and what parts of these statements I do understand are clearly bullshit. My examples have little to do with probability as far as I know. It's about experimentation to prove or disprove a hypothesis.

Now, let's not detract from the topic of this thread. Why should I believe in God?

Your method of acceptance is bizarre.

Oh yes, asking for proof of a claim is a bizarre way to help determine if that claim is correct.

It often reflects the philosophy of a man named Clifford. Far that I can tell, not even Richard Dakwins quotes that man. He quotes the man who argument excellently against Clifford's insane method of reasoning. His name was William James in his book "Will to Believe."

You keep dropping references in what appears to be a pathetic attempt to sound knowledgeable and cultured. I don't understand these references unfortunately, so if you want to stop wasting your time debating me, why not explain these references? Or just forego them entirely and explain in detail why you disagree with my beliefs about the existence of God?

Ultimately I cannot tell convince you to believe in God, by reason or faith. Realistically reason or faith don't exist in my opinion, only metaphysical.

Uh huh.

All I can say is that everything has a reason. That is why I believe in God.

What created God?

At 2/9/14 12:56 AM, Ranger2 wrote:

At 2/4/14 12:42 PM, ZJ wrote: Essentially it's going to be same old "Evolution is just a theory!" debate we've heard a bunch of times,

Evolution IS just a theory, that's why it's called the theory of evolution. Not even Bill Nye will call it fact because science is proof without certainty. It's a lot easier to know if something's wrong than if it's right, and evolution is nowhere near close to being proven as fact. It's just the best guess we have so far, which frankly is the level we're at for just about all of science.

Evolution is fact. We observe it all of the time. The occurrence of antibiotic resistance is evolution in action. The creation of new insect species and bacteria is evolution in action, specifically macroevolution, and is observable. There's an overwhelming amount of evidence that the Theory of Evolution is correct. I hate to sound dogmatic, but doubting the Theory of Evolution is akin to doubting that the Earth revolves around the Sun. In essence, doubting the Theory of Evolution is to ignore all of the evidence that proves it to be right.

The particulars of some tenets in the theory may not be completely proven in certain situations, but there is no serious debate in the scientific community about the veracity of this scientific theory. Keep that in mind before trying to cast doubt on it.

I hope you're not an advocate of creationism or intelligent design, Ranger2.

At 2/4/14 11:15 PM, X-Gary-Gigax-X wrote:

At 2/4/14 10:22 PM, Light wrote:

At 2/4/14 09:09 AM, Korriken wrote:

At 2/4/14 06:52 AM, Fluffington wrote: Gay Men Beaten in Russia

What the hell, Russia? The homophobia over there is just disgusting.

It's not a phobia, its a hatred. Homo-Odium. Also, it's not as bad as is it in Iran, where the government hangs you for it.

I don't want to be pedantic, but hatred of gay people is homophobia by definition.

People who are arachnophobic are too petrified to beat up a spider when they see one.

The term "homophobia" which isn't an actual medical diagnosis, caught on because of the alliteration of the word, h0m0ph0bia, three O-sounds in the name. The media loves words like Drunk Driving, or War on Women because they roll off the tongue more easily.

But for the sake of truth, homodium sounds more accurate.

My point is that homophobia by definition means fear and/or hatred of gay people. This is a fact.

At 2/5/14 09:06 PM, Warforger wrote:
A phobia is a fear, thus homophobia doesn't necessarily mean you hate gay people but that you fear them. You can fear something but not hate it, I'm going to assume that there are people who are scared of heights but do not want to get rid of them either.

The dictionary disagrees with you. Those people who assaulted gays in Russia because they're gay are, by definition, homophobes. Do I have to whip out a online dictionary definition?

At 2/4/14 09:09 AM, Korriken wrote:

At 2/4/14 06:52 AM, Fluffington wrote: Gay Men Beaten in Russia

What the hell, Russia? The homophobia over there is just disgusting.

It's not a phobia, its a hatred. Homo-Odium. Also, it's not as bad as is it in Iran, where the government hangs you for it.

I don't want to be pedantic, but hatred of gay people is homophobia by definition.

At 2/4/14 09:53 PM, Angry-Hatter wrote:

Most of the religious viewers won't be reached, but a few of them will be. Just a few, but that's all that it takes to sustain the current trend away from religious dogma.

I'm inclined to agree and it's encouraging to see extreme religiosity on the decline in this day and age.

ATHEIST WORLD DOMINATION.

Shh, we're not there yet. We're still vulnerable.

At 2/4/14 06:51 PM, Tankdown wrote:

At 2/4/14 06:30 PM, Light wrote: What does this even mean?

Don't worry about it, read some of William James works if you care.

No. Tell me what you mean if you want to convince me. Don't dismiss my question out of hand for the sake of convenience. It doesn't make any sense if you care at all about defending your argument.

Certainly you're a blunt person. Not sure how to get to you, maybe I'll sit back and study you some more. All I can say you are wrong about the scientific community.

How am I wrong? This is exactly how the scientific community does things, hence, how the entire scientific enterprise works.

In fact, the way the scientific community does scientific work is often criticized by some philosophers of science. Whether or not they're right is irrelevant. What matters is that they acknowledge the way the scientific community works. I showed you how it works. Everyone knows how they work. But for some reason, you say I'm wrong. lol.

Now, let's not detract from the topic of this thread. Why should I believe in God?

At 2/4/14 06:39 PM, Angry-Hatter wrote:

That's why I'm staying out of this. I've had half a mind to respond to some of the stuff he's written, but I decided against it because of his difficulties with communicating clearly. I wish you the best of luck, Light.

lol, thanks.

At 2/4/14 09:09 PM, Angry-Hatter wrote:

Ham's answer: "nothing is going to convince me that the word of God is wrong".

You see, this just proves to me the inanity of having a debate with these people. Openly refusing to conceive of any evidence that can shake you from your faith and convictions is the hallmark of an idiotic dogmatist.

At 2/4/14 03:36 PM, Tankdown wrote:

At 2/3/14 12:11 AM, Light wrote:

This principle exists in the world of science; it isn't up to the scientists who don't believe, for example, that vaccines cause autism to disprove that claim. It's up to those who do believe that vaccines cause autism to prove it. So far, they have failed miserably.

Pragmatist Karl Popper disagrees.

Proving exists in the negative as well as in the positive. A constructionist argument says a double negative necessarily prove a positive. In the vaccine example neither group have committed an act of science. Science cannot rely on the fact it does not exist for it has not tested that it does not exist. While the other could not prove it does exist. There is not information that says that it couldn't. What you are describing is agnosticism, not science.

Karl Popper was a philosopher of science who advanced certain views about what science should be and how it should work. Keep in mind that what he says is his own philosophy, so it's certainly disputable. In Popper's view, my example may be flawed, but in the eyes of the scientific community and in my view, the example is flawless. That's how the scientific process currently works and that's how the scientific community currently does things. That is how it should work. I see no need for it to be changed.

A theists proves to himself god exists with undeniable axioms he/she tests.

No they don't. They just take a leap of faith and rationalize their decision after the fact. I know it's blunt, but it's true.

And I've never heard of these so-called undeniable axioms proving the existence of God. Tell me about them.

An atheist proves god does not exists with axioms that are either not tested or cannot be tested.

What? I don't know what you're talking about. I can't speak for other atheists, but I did not do this t oarrive to the conclusion that I did. I don't claim that God doesn't exist. I just see no reason to believe in him because I see no evidence for his existence. I think most other atheists think the way I do. .

Rationally an atheist can be agnostic as some theists are, but deep down (personal belief) no one is truly agnostic. As William James try to argue about by saying no one is agnostic, but you certainly can change your belief.

What does this even mean?

Angry-Hatter is right; you're terrible at coherently expressing your views.

As much as I respect Bill Nye, I wish he wouldn't dignify these creationist morons' requests for a debate. Educated people know that creationism is not science and is not correct.

With that said, if Nye is going to debate this man, then he better give him the trouncing of his life.

At 2/3/14 02:16 AM, sh40601 wrote:
How do others feel about this?

Seems like much ado about nothing.

At 2/3/14 12:07 AM, MonochromeMonitor wrote: Kennedy introduced the Civil Rights Act to congress.

I love how you keep ignoring the context in which Kennedy belatedly expressed his support for the passage of civil rights legislation, making him much less than admirable for it. I hate to say it, but it seems you're a typical American who admires JFK so much that you almost completely ignore his serious faults as a man and as a politician. Take off the rose-tinted glasses and realize that John F. Kennedy isn't the man or the President that the American media and society in general makes him out to be.

At the very least, do your research on the man and his legacy by studying the works of professional historians that discuss his presidency in detail. I know that most of those works by historians don't describe Kennedy as positively as the American public would and for good reason.

Needless to say, there's a significant gap between public perception of John F. Kennedy and scholarly perception of him. Americans rank him among our greatest presidents. Historians don't. You should find out why if you aren't willing to read my earlier posts in this thread.