Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 9/23/11 10:55 PM, aviewaskewed wrote:

At 9/22/11 08:13 PM, Warforger wrote: Nah that was just from the fan fiction Dante's Inferno, the Bible just says it's some furnace and doesn't really elaborate much more than that.

Dante is fan fic done right!

redefining religion and national identity in one book is pretty damn woot sauce.

At 9/21/11 10:46 PM, afuckingname wrote: and i should add that their 'spiritual experience' is eating a peice of bread

lies; it's a piece of a Jew.

...what do you mean thats even weirder?...

i say we haven't talked about how "god made us" enough; we have whole books on "who we are", what we should be like and how to act (both individually and socially), and these books tend to oppose change. seems like deliberate holding backness on the big guy's part.

there's the fun conundrum of trying to be godly but avoiding being godlike.
it messes with my cloning experiments.

At 9/16/11 11:45 AM, Ericho wrote: I do not believe in a giant eye that floats with a pyramid, but do I go around sueing people saying this offends my religious beliefs? It's silly.

a better comparison may be "in God we trust," plenty of people think there's basis to sue for that.

At 9/15/11 11:37 PM, satanbrain wrote: In israel we have an army to defend us, whereas in other countries it depends on the governments' goodwill.

no offence, but Israel's army hasn't gotten to where it is without the goodwill of some gentile governments.

At 9/15/11 06:34 AM, aliguytor wrote: Over the years Israel was conquered by so many empires and tribes and whatnot, It shouldn't really matter who ruled the land in all those ancient biblical eras. It's just irrelevant.
Canaanites, Jewish, Greek, Romans, Crusaders, Turks, British......

if Israel is a constant target of aggression and conquest, how is it safer for Jews to live there then as minorities throughout the world?

At 9/15/11 12:48 AM, TNT wrote: Where were the atheists when some guy wanted to build the Islamic Center close to Ground Zero? They didn't seem to care about that, so logically, they shouldn't care about some cross.

If I'm wrong, then correct me.

one is an Islamic center because Muslims wanted one, the other is a cross at the site of a national tragedy that affected many faiths. big difference in circumstances and context.

and i'm against neither :D

At 9/14/11 11:54 AM, djack wrote: Actually it is disputed. That's why they stopped calling it global warming and started calling it climate change. Climate scientists can't figure out whether the world is heating up or cooling down and all of the reputable data on the subject is based on recent measurements which can't accurately determine the long term changes in global temperature.

from what i've read the average global temperature is still on the rise and i'm curious if "climate change" is simply a means of addressing those who don't understand averages, i.e. its the coldest/snowiest/etc... year we've had yet in such-and-such a place!
as far as Al Gore and the media reporting on it, i'm not surprised there's so much confusion considering how they are attempting to explain complex meteorological phenomena through the limited means of public entertainment media.

as in, just because its public and accessible info doesn't mean its being spread in a comprehensive or complete manner.
p.p.s. not to mention that "we have to stop it before its too late" is a little stupid considering research i had seen a while back indicated that even if we "fixed" whatever we're doing, warming would still continue for some time.

At 9/13/11 10:23 AM, Elfer wrote: This lawsuit is preposterous, and is probably just going to be thrown out by the judge. The cross is being placed in the memorial museum because it's a historic curiosity and a big friggin' deal to a bunch of people.

dj's link gives one of the most complete summations of the cross's origin and significance; it wasn't created by people intentionally but did inspire them after the events. knowing that this is the case does change the dynamics and implications of it as it defines it as an artifact rather than something specifically intended to pay tribute to a particular group over another. with this being the case, i doubt it would hold up in court, nor do i see how it would be exclusive or diminutive to others.

we can't re-raze the towers until every faith is represented by supporting beams.

At 9/13/11 09:56 AM, satanbrain wrote: You have ignored my post. You fail to see your hypocrisity when accusing us of crimes we did not commit and purify yourself of crimes nazis committed. Either crimes are hereditary or they are not.

i guess since we are still considering how best to correct the issues brought about by slavery and colonialism here in North America, it must mean crimes are hereditary. </sarcasm>

At 9/12/11 11:08 AM, Shaggytheclown17 wrote: I did hear this one part where the guy wanted an "atheist symbol" there too....

while i can't call bullshit, i also haven't seen any such comment; the issue was that it be removed or symbols of other faiths and organizations be represented. slightly different from being solely self-serving.

...but that's because its what they want you to think!

At 9/5/11 09:29 PM, VenomKing666 wrote: No but you can make arguments about the probability of his existence based on logic, and it is extremely unlikely that there is a god, and no evidence proving his existence. So Atheism is the reasonable attitude here.

in my opinion the greatest issue with proving or testing god is that there is no agreed upon definition/description of god. even within a religion, i.e. Christianity, there is often deliberate obfuscation as to what the divine is, coupled with the assertion that it is something that cannot be known (at least not completely) by man.

At 9/6/11 02:01 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: Anyway, anyone have anything new towards the legitimacy of Israel?

Satan mentioned the notion of recompense, and certainly we've discussed how righting land issues are indeed something to be looked into, but of course these aren't the only limits of "ethical and just" action.
considering the view that god granted them the land and the right to dispossess others is still a part of the narrative of Israel for some, the revisiting of these notions are certainly one way of addressing a questionable past; i.e. Germany has and continues to deal with issues of Nazism, the Americas have dealt with and continue to address the issues of colonialism (be it conquest, genocide or slavery), ...
it would be without doubt ridiculous to return land to the dead, but it is hardly the only option for "righting" historical injustices.

...now i'm doubting whether this actually is original with regards to the thread or not...

so the rebels don't seem to have been to put-off by NATO actions (they still like us despite a few misses, right?). is that a sign that Syrians and others may welcome intervention despite their history of despising the West?

At 9/5/11 10:59 AM, satanbrain wrote:

At 9/5/11 12:42 AM, aviewaskewed wrote: Funny you keep bringing up human rights when you yourself admit Israel was established when the Jews conquered the land and slaughtered the Caninites.

Find the canaanites, they are those who should be recompensed for their slaughter.

i think this may answer your question about whether or not a successful genocide is a moral genocide.

At 9/1/11 03:06 AM, VenomKing666 wrote: ...however belief in him sustain other ass backwards beliefs that really make some people act like degenerates.

precisely, and the idea of being perfect/god-like is something addressed by many religions; most say we aren't "perfect" because of god, nor should we seek to be "gods." plenty of advances have been protested by people thinking "if god wanted us to do [x] he would have made us with [y]."

not to mention our many limitations are identifiable and something we seek to overcome in fields other than religion.

Not sure where you are going here.

science is entirely based on the expansion of our perception beyond natural human limits.

while i'm not one for thinking thunderstorms require sacrificing to, there does seem to be a correlation between escalations of natural hardships (mainly what shit El Niño stirs up) and conflict. but this points more to people being less chummy when things go to hell than their institution of the divine's plan.

and we can't forget those who do think that way. fun to know magical thinking is defined.

At 8/31/11 11:34 PM, VenomKing666 wrote: Well no shit sherlock, perfection is a concept that does not exist in reality.

it was intended to be a simple figure of speech, simply stating we're awesome but limited. though given the subject of the thread, perfection (or the supposed lack thereof) seems relevant in discussing whether our "creator/sustainer" limits us.
not to mention our many limitations are identifiable and something we seek to overcome in fields other than religion.

...our spiritual limitations are a little less clear.

At 8/31/11 09:58 AM, VenomKing666 wrote:

At 8/31/11 09:54 AM, Camarohusky wrote: God doesn't hold us back. Being human does.

1. How does being human hold us back?

limited senses, perception, cognition; we're pretty cool, but we're not perfect... yet (its mother'ucking cyborg time!).

At 8/30/11 06:39 PM, brokenrecord6299 wrote: ...So I took up weed. I was addicted for about 2 days...

roflcopters.

supposedly shaggy isn't in with the "Jews with space-lasers did 9/11" (possibly a slight misrepresentation :p) crowd anymore. +1 for dickdom?

At 8/30/11 01:09 AM, satanbrain wrote: "We have forced not one arab one, some of the palestinans have chosen run away by themselves."

it seems strange to admit that war, or fear of war, forced people off their land, yet because they did it of their own "volition" they no longer have a right to the land.

Really? Let's look at it again: Ethnic - "a : of or relating to large groups of people classed according to common racial, national, tribal, religious, linguistic, or cultural origin or background".

i know this doesn't add much to the topic, but i can't help it; lololololololol.

At 8/29/11 01:24 PM, Chris-V2 wrote: Israel would be impossible I remove as a nation, I agree, but it's legitimacy as a state is undermined with its inherent disatsifaction with its current form - it's expansionist, and I can't really respect any state that feels it deserves more land than its got.

while it might not have been overly clear, the intention in my original post (the one termed a reduction to the absurd) was an attempt to establish that our concepts of the nation-state and land rights are in and of themselves absurd.

not to mention that time is as arbitrary a means of discerning what should and shouldn't be fretted over as is majority rule; certainly some things have occurred centuries prior, but this does not cause nations (peoples) to disappear, nor their claims.

At 8/29/11 01:05 PM, djack wrote: People often view disasters as a sign that they need to act, in this case the recent series of natural disasters in the DC area will likely bring public attention to exactly how much they dislike the government and encourage them to enact change.

this makes sense; humans are reactionary.
the mandate of heaven does not, mainly because Europe and the West had no such doctrine (the divine right of kings meant you could never, ever, fuck with the king). also, we have don't have any ruling monarchs or unassailable statesmen.

also, why listen to the gods?

i had a chuckle at Irene's expense, i paid the price by having to work outside yesterday.

sideways rain; your pants are fucked.

At 8/28/11 10:39 PM, SadisticMonkey wrote:

At 8/28/11 03:42 PM, Daddy-L-Jackson wrote: Yes... when we accepted leaders and evolved out of anarchy.

you have no idea about state formation

i do like how he attributes a lack of scientists describing our early states of being as anarchy because our scientists are state-funded.

must apologize for confusing who comments are directed at, and seeming silly.

At 8/28/11 11:53 AM, Camarohusky wrote: OK, I'll bite. What are these 'traits' of anarchsim?

they have no archons?

what about dark archons?

i'm not impressed by your earthquake, nor your hurricane. if this is an indication of the gods' will, i'm thoroughly disappointed by your deities.

Washington is above sea level; thinking anything like Katrina can happen there seems a little ridiculous.
... that's not to say those on the coast needn't be worried (or along the Potomac).

but if the question is legitimacy, we have to define how we find something to be legitimate. as has been pointed out before, most nations agree to Israel's right (inherent legitimacy) to exist as a nation. for some reason we like to think that matters, and our systems of government (the countries everyone likes) are defined by it.
so certainly it is fair to examine this right by other means; what were the factors in its creation, how was it created, what were the lasting effects of its creation, etc, etc, ... and most answers, beyond the creation of a stable democratic state (we like knowing others can count, i guess), aren't pleasant or particularly positive. so, should we weigh the legitimacy and righteousness of Israel's history, and by that measure accept or deny modern Israel's right to exist as a nation?
if not, how do you resolve the displacement of thousands generations ago? whether its Jerusalem or Paha Sapa, how do you deal with the children and grandchildren of those displacers, who took no part in the actions that brought them there and have grown-up as Israelis or Americans? do we do the same as was done to whoever else's forefather, force them off their land and destroy their nation? though i doubt that's what you hope to achieve, it is the only easy solution to land right claims.
another pertinent question in both the case of, Israel and the US, is according to whose claims do we reestablish borders/resettlement/land rights? Native American nations weren't a permanent patchwork of peace-loving territories, and numerous significant wars had reshaped many territories hardly a generation or two prior to American expansion. if you still think this is nothing but ridicule, you've missed the point that arbitrary decisions and structures define our world. undermining the legitimacy of Israel or the US (different from questioning action and policy), whether or not one seeks to destroy it, does damage to those who see themselves as Israeli, American, etc..., more certainly than it does to it's government.

the question was how can i hold Israel as legitimate and not demand a Native American America? because it would be impossible to achieve as things are today. in my opinion it is something that should be addressed in the same manner as the current state of the Palestinian people. whether or not they achieve independent nation/statehood immediately, or even in the near future is putting the cart before the horse.

we know who the Iroquois are, we know their lands (what we left them anyhow), but we're baffled when they identify as such...

At 8/28/11 12:08 AM, aviewaskewed wrote: Don't encourage him.

oh ye of little faith.

At 8/21/11 10:45 AM, Jizzlebang wrote: Get it?

the only legitimate human settlement on earth is the Rift Valley in Africa!

hold the phones; apparently we victimized non-sapiens homos out of there too, ergo nothing is legitimate. end thread?

i wonder how it would effect the economy considering summer vacation gets some cheap unskilled labor into the system for a few months.

and its a place to get an idea of what life holds for us all.
...not that student labor is a major driving force, just saying.