Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 1/23/07 04:07 PM, intrinsik2 wrote: The implication of which is that believing in science becomes more and more valid. The belief in science is just as valid and just as invalid as a belief in anything else. A belief in the absolute does not in turn make the belief itself absolute, however it serves the believer to define his/her belief as absolute.

How is science even a belief? The only "belief" I have in science is that the conclusions it draws are as valid as they can be given our current knowledge and understanding of the topics involved, and the current quality of the equipment being used to conduct experiments.

Believe it or not, thinking that science draws better conclusions than religion is not equivalent to thinking that religion draws better conclusions than science. They draw different kinds of conclusions, but the point remains.

At 1/23/07 08:53 AM, CrimsonEdge wrote: I'm not a religious man, nor do I give a shit about what science thinks on the creations of the universe.

Yet some people do. Who are you to tell people what to and what not to discuss?

We are here, I am alive

Well no shit hon. Did you work that one out all by yourself?

I am typing this out and being pissed that people actually give a shit about whether or not some good took a shit and out plopped dark matter and then the world spun around for eons and the fucking cookie monster took a bite out of this god shit and everything exploded. It doesn't matter.

What?

Stop acting like there is going to be a right answer. You science fucks know that the probability of ANYONE actually being right is so slim to none that you look stupid arguing just as a whole.

Haha, there is some mathematical rule that says that nobody is going to be right about anything, ever?

Also, JUST BECAUSE IT'S NEW DOESN'T MAKE IT RIGHT.

I assume that by this you mean that current scientific progress isn't necessarily correct because it discusses things that have been recently discovered. You're right, but as science progresses, it gets continually corrected, thus making current theories more and more valid.

Infact, anyone with any sort of awesome science background would know that there are an infinite number of universes, each with an infinite number of possibilities in each one.

Multiverse theory is just a speculation, and is based on no evidence whatsoever.

For anyone to say "THIS IS HOW IT HAPPENED" in this universe is taking a shit on logic and reason.

Not only does that not follow, but for you to say that multiverse theory is indisputably correct and an established fact is taking a shit on logic and reason.

What I ask of everyone is simple: Use logic and reason while shutting the fuck up about beliefs. I don't care about Pascal's Wager, I don't care about the Big Bang. All I care about is my new car I'm buying in an hour as well as my band that has practice tommorow. Nothing else matters.

Yet other people care. You don't have to read "science vs. religion" topics if you don't want to. You are not in some way obliged to look at things which piss you off. Hey, guess what else no-one cares about? The fact that you don't care about pascal's wager or the big bang! Aren't word games fun?

And before you say it, I grow tiresome of those kind of topics too, but damn is it fun to knock some sense into religious fundamentalists.

At 1/22/07 07:36 PM, Altarus wrote: "There is no God" is an attack on a belief. "God exists" is an affirmation of a belief. The difference isnt even subtle.

lol, you aren't very good at this "logical argument" thing are you.

In the same respect, I could say that proclaiming God to exist as an attack on my lack of belief, and for proclaiming God to not exist to be an affirmation of my lack of belief.

Just thought I'd revive this, because apparently the claims were shown to be false.

If anything I'm glad.

At 1/22/07 12:42 AM, Imperator wrote:

At 1/21/07 08:31 PM, HogWashSoup wrote: because there is no god.

Evidence of why Christians are still more persecuted than atheists (seen in another thread).

Seriously, and WE'RE supposed to be the intolerant ones? Next jackass that brings up the Inquisition or Crusades gets my boot up their ass.

Saying "there is no god" is about as much persecution against Christians as saying "God exists" is persecution against atheists.

At 1/21/07 05:10 PM, So-Smart-s0-Dumb wrote:

At 1/21/07 05:08 PM, Peter-II wrote: This thread must be very easy to maintain.

I'm guessing sarcasm, so if you were being sarcastic....
How is it not easy to maintain?

Because it's so easy to argue against your average Christian about their religion.

This thread must be very easy to maintain.

At 1/20/07 02:19 PM, chocolate-penguin wrote: Hmm, really? Isn't the BBC the same news organization that made articles trying to make it seem as if America deserved 9/11?

Seriously, I watch the BBC all the time and I've never heard it make any claims like that one...

Still, Channel 4 is better, for world coverage at least. BBC lacks substance.

At 1/20/07 12:25 PM, packow wrote: 1. We have photographic evidence of the earth being round. Their is ZERO scientific evidence to the contrary.

And we have the fossil record, not to mention bacterial resistance to antiobiotics, vestigial organs and microevolution (which implies macroevolution), and there is zero scientific evidence to the contrary.

2. We have failed to make one species completely turn into another species.

Point being? I doubt that's even possible, considering macroevolution takes place over a long time, acumulating small, microevolutionary genetic change. Besides anything, that wouldn't stop evolution from being a fact anyway. Evolution just refers to variation in the gene pool, which most definitely has been directly observed.

At 1/19/07 04:35 PM, Experimental wrote: Of course, if I just popped up a religous link saying they're not, I doubt you would consider the website to be truthful. Like if I pulled up a religous link that came down on atheists like that one, you could bash it, calling it full of "lies".

lol, TalkOrigins isn't atheistic. It's just anti-creationist.

And yet, you have yet to give me proof. It's really amazing, you guys are still doing the same exact thing and going around what i'm asking for. You telling me things i already know, but you're not giving the hard proof i'm desiring. If you can't give it, then you really have no reason for arguement.

Well obviously I wasn't telling you things you already knew as you proclaimed that there aren't any transitional fossils, when you can research any of the transitional fossils the links I gave, and discover that, in fact, transitional forms have been fossilised.

Okay, how is there not "hard proof" for evolution? I suppose that the slow build-up of complexity in fossilised forms merely shows that different species just died? Have you ever paused to consider just how completely absurd that notion is?

At 1/19/07 03:02 PM, SolInvictus wrote: the topic starter is actually right, a more recent translation of that passage from an older scripture states that the number of the beast is in fact 612 and not 666.

It's actually 616, if memory serves.

At 1/18/07 06:07 PM, Experimental wrote: You're going to have to do give me real proof. But in order to do that, you'll need to find the many labeled "missing links". Since you have yet to find any, you can't. What you did was provide me with what we found, and used it to theorize and further advance our knowledge about evolution (based on evidence).

Okay I just can't let this one go. Creationists such as yourself love to spout the "THAR R NO MISSIGN LINKS, LOL, THEREFORE EVOLUTION IS FALSE" argument like it's some fucking gospel, but seriously, get a clue. Do some real reading. I've responded to these sorts of claims so often that I'm just going to give you a few links. TalkOrigins could probably put this more eloquently than me anyway.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.h tml

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200_1 .html

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC201.h tml

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC202.h tml

And before you say some stupid shit like the website could be lying, take the transitional fossils they list and Google image search them, and prepare to be amazed.

Evidence is different than proof.

blah blah YUO HAEV NO PROFO SO IM GONAN CIET MI BOOK

We've been having some stormy weather. I went sent home early from skewl because of it.

I never really felt it myself but apparently it was serious enough to blow off part of my house so that it'd fall straight into the greenhouse. D:

I'm worried that a 20-year-old believes in numerology, myself.

At 1/17/07 07:02 PM, shohaib wrote: 1. What religion did you first believe in?

Okay there is a flaw in your premise. Your questionnaire is based around the idea that all atheists were once religious. While there is a trend, that simply isn't true in all cases. Take me for instance; I have never been "religious" per se, since my mum isn't evangelical and my dad's an atheist. The only deeply religious relatives are in Canada, and I don't visit them that often.

2. At what age did you tun to atheism?

That's a difficult question to answer...when I was about ten I think, I started thinking the whole concept of Christianity (being that, at the time, it was the only religion I'd been exposed to) was ridiculous, which was primarily because I went to a partially religious primary school. They'd basically tell the odd heart-warming story about god destroying every animal in existence because a few pissed him off, and I was like "wtf is this bullshit, if he loves us then why..." etc. It was never an act of rebellion, more of an in-built rationalism which I suppose I had been raised with. When I became more freethinking, I became an agnostic, thinking that God's existence was impossible to prove either way. However, I started thinking this to be an unsatisfying position to be in, and kept wondering.

I toyed with ignosticism for a while (no, not agnosticism, ignosticism; wiki it). Then I figured that that particular position was also unsatisfying. Now, I'm a hardened atheist and sceptic. In terms of ages, I couldn't be specific; but it's something like:

10 - atheist
12 - agnostic
14 - ignostic
15 - atheist

3. Have you explored other religions?

I've explored, or at least attempted to explore all sorts...however, I got bored of reading holy texts after reading the Bible, attempting the Qu'ran and the Satanic Bible. I have to say, the best read was probably the Satanic Bible, but LaVey sort of refuted himself when he pretty much said Satanism was no different from secular humanism, apart from in the respect that Satanism had a specific doctrine. I don't like doctrine.

Heh, you're giving it to NG? That's hilarious. Christ I hate that class.

At 1/18/07 01:22 PM, Fim wrote: 1.
What is your view on cannabis use?

The economic benefits of legalising cannabis would be enormous, and thus, since it has no more negative health effects than alcohol or tobacco, should be legalized. Otherwise, I'm mostly impartial to the use of the substance itself.

2.
Do you think that using cannabis is a negative social problem?

Nah, it's a good social networking drug. A bunch of people lying around going on about love isn't doing any harm.

3.
What are your thoughts on those who say that cannabis is the "gateway drug" to harder substances.

It's only true in the sense that if you're smoking cannabis, then the chances are you'll know people who'll be able to persuade you to start taking other drugs, and that kind of thing. Otherwise, I don't really see why marijuana would motivate you to snort crack.

4.
What do you think of the link of violence and crime in relation to cannabis and other drugs?

There's only a link between hard drugs and violence / crime. The only crime linked with taking marijuana is the taking of marijuana itself.

5.
Would you say that it is predominantly the lower class males of society that use cannabis?

No.

6.
Why do you think people experiment with drugs?

Boredom, social networking, and the simple desire to experiment with oneself..

7.
Do you think there is any way the government could fully solve the nation's problems with cannabis misuse?

Yeah; legalize and tax it. HUUUUGE economic benefits.

Arguably, religion and science aren't mutually exclusive, and anything out of a religion that science has disproven is just a "theistic metaphor"...

But, to me, it'd be weird if God created the big bang and arranged it so the dust and gas blew out, formed other elements, attracted to each other due to gravity, formed trillions upon trillions of galaxies, each composed of billions of stars, just so that, BILLIONS of years later, in a very minor, completely insignificant but still gigantic galaxy, on a minor planet in one of millions, possibly billions of solar systems amongst that galaxy, a load of complex shit happened in primeval oceans with self-producing RNA molecules formed the very first, very simple cells, which then evolved over millions of years to form complex cells, which then evolved to form multicellular life, which then evolved to form invertebrates, then vertebrates, then simple fish, then amphibians, then reptiles, then mammals, and then, millions upon millions of years later, the first apes, which steadily evolved into humans as we know today, which started to build societies over tens of thousands of years, all the while worshipping false gods, ALL so that this one Jew could die for everyone's else sins and "God's plan could be fulfilled", by which I mean us fucking up our planet and blowing each other's brains out.

I mean, wouldn't it be easier if he just created humans straight away if they're the purpose of the ENTIRE FUCKING UNIVERSE, rather than doing all this dramatic cosmological bullshit?

At 1/16/07 02:53 PM, zeus-almighty wrote: Really? I've seen this board hate on jews and christians, but never ever muslims.

Are you blind?

Usually Christians are dissed in science vs. religion topics, but even there, it's usually just on creationists, who aren't religion-specific...and when you have ripping on Christians, you have ripping on atheists.

The only time I've seen this board hate on Jews is when people are either stealing jokes from South Park, or are just neo-nazi trolls, who are just trying to start up trouble.

Islamics are usually hated on in more politically orientated topics, where people will do things like take inciteful passages from the Qu'ran and attribute them to terrorist attacks etc. Which seems to be a solid argument, considering most Islamic terrorists are extremists.

I wouldn't say this board "hates" Muslims. However, there is a concentration on them because of the media focusing on Middle-Eastern terrorism, where people are typically Muslim.

At 1/16/07 12:40 PM, TheRoyalEnglishman wrote: I'm not much of a numbers-equation man myself. I'm more of a writing-analysing-creating person. Today in Physics we learnt about pressure. I got it, but it was kinda boring. So I'm better at history and english. And languages of course.

Physics isn't interesting when you're 13, and nor are the equations involved difficult. Even if you're not good with numbers, it can't be that bloody difficult to use the s=d/t relationship.

At 1/16/07 12:36 PM, rave-lad wrote: what kind of job are you goin to get with a pocksy physics a level? seriously such a small amount avaiable

Well Physics can lead to engineering for a start, for which there are a lot more well-paying jobs than say, someone with an A-level in PE.

You 'tard.

That's thoroughly depressing.

Anal sex must be natural - the prostate gland wasn't put there for nothing!

At 1/15/07 02:55 PM, Experimental wrote: Exactly. So you're going to have to come up with something better than "so what".

Um, natural just means occuring without inteference. I fail to see how homosexuality doesn't fall under that.

The money used for this kind of research I think would be better spent on the kind of research that directly saves lives, or at least serves a more significant purpose than stopping babies from being gay.

At 1/14/07 03:14 AM, Aserg wrote: Why do the Jews own figures for their total European population pre and post Holohoax not show a fall in numbers ?

I don't know about the other claims since I'm not a historian and have never visited Auchwitz, but I know this is false for a start. Every Holocaust denier I've come across has cited the World Almanac for this claim, showing that the 1940 World Almanac says that the world Jewish population is actually lower than the 1949 world Jewish population. In fact, this is false, as the 1940 World Almanac gives the Jewish population as 15,319,359, and the 1949 World Almanac gives the Jewish population as 11,266,600. Furthermore, the World Almanac isn't that great a Census reference in any case.

At 1/14/07 12:02 AM, SmilezRoyale wrote: If you take chemistry, you'll also note that the atmos of one particular atom are not always the same. [tridium, deterium, are both hydrogen, but are different]

He was referring to fundamental particles, not atoms. Everything, absolutely everything that exists can be described as a collection of fermions bound together by bosons. Which is why Pox is making the point that everything is essentially the same, only with a different structure, which leads to the point that if God can't affect the physical properties of free will, he can't affect anything, etc.

At 1/12/07 08:24 PM, Mercator wrote: I take it no one else knows what the glass ceiling is. You people make me sad.

In a nutshell, women can "see" the top managerial jobs, but can't get them, due to male managers wanting to maintain the status quo.

Or something like that...

At 1/12/07 06:55 PM, Begoner wrote: Does an electron "choose" where it wants to go or is it driven there by some sort of physical law? And if it is driven there by a physical law, how can such a law be random? It's not like the force of gravity differs from one minute to the next; how can any other physical law allow for two possible outcomes given an identical situation?

Essentially, as I said before, quantum mechanics is trippy shit. When one is dealing with electron behaviour, one has to discount all of the laws of physics they're used to.

At 1/12/07 06:09 PM, Togukawa wrote:

In short, quantum mechanics is some trippy shit. For example, the fact that the "electron cloud" around the atom is literally a cloud of probability representing where the electron(s) could be at any given time...man, it makes my head hurt.

At 1/12/07 01:56 PM, Togukawa wrote: Traffic is quite an important part in CO2 emission, and that's something the general public (or better yet, the government, through taxes and limitations) can do something about.

sourcage!

Yes, I was getting a little carried away there wasn't I? I do agree that children should walk to school if they can, and if not, use public transport. However, what I don't agree with is letting yourself have that warm little feeling and feel less guilty just because you're walking to school. If you're seriously that bothered about reducing global warming on an individual basis, walk / cycle / use public transport all the time, like I (try to) do.

As your source also states, the largest contributer to C02 emissions are energy industries, and given that they're industries rather than individuals, they can make the biggest difference.

And here I thought that the record temperature was highest 4 billion years ago when Earth was a molten ball of lava.

Yes, because of the incredibly high levels of carbon dioxide.