Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 4/26/07 12:40 AM, Imperator wrote:

At 4/26/07 12:02 AM, bcdemon wrote:
I have no idea what it will take to prove that god exists. You say simple acts of kindness prove that god exists, what do you say about god when someone shoots up 32 college folk? If a mom raising a college graduate is proof that god exists, then what about a mother who raises a crack baby to lead a life of crime? I'm sorry, but in my 35 years alive on this planet I have yet to see anything that proved to me beyond a doubt that god exists.

Remember now, God works in mysterious ways. When you see a crack baby, I see someone in need. That's where we have the divine come into play. A troubled teen shoots up VT and leaves a tragic path of destruction. Out of this we've seen magnificent acts of kindness, caring, and compassion. There is now a large movement to make sure no kid EVER feels the way Cho did. You can even go one step deeper and use the Holocaust. What came out of it? Geneva conventions, humanitarian organizations, and the willpower to make sure it never happens again. What doesn't kill you only makes you stronger, and history shows that. We've went from human sacrafice, to slavery, to concubines, to "All men are created equal". In my mind, human compassion like that shows a divine spark.

And in your 35 years of life, you probably won't see anything that proves to you beyond a doubt that God exists.....but then again, that's why it's called faith.....

My point here was that you asked for proof that God exists, but you yourself cannot give the criteria for such proof. So how can I prove God exists if you will simply shoot down whatever I might consider evidence? This is where I have a problem with many atheists, as it shows a lack of respect and willingness to understand the other side's perspective that leads to the "that's not proof!" comments.

Maybe it IS as simple as a beautiful sunset, and the warm feeling you get helping out someone less fortunate than you? How do you know that my criteria isn't correct?

Religious folk are basically brainwashed (you know, systematic indoctrination) from childhood to believe in god. I haven't been taught to believe or not believe, I have made up my mind through my life experiences.

Brainwashed? This is the type of egocentric attitude that does not make for healthy interactions. Do you think I'm simply some brainwashed peon? Do you really think parents don't allow children the choice as they grow older? cause if that's the case, then of course nothing I can say will change that attitude. I prefer to debate with people more open-minded individuals.

If theists are brainwashed, what are atheists? The subjects that failed to be brainwashed? The "elite"? The smart ones?

You've said some great things here, Imperator. Being the agnostic I am, I still don't see all that as evidence of the sort of conventional God we hear about in most major religions. I still think that there is more to the universe than what we say... and it is perfectly possible that there IS a God. However I am not convinced of what exactly the nature of it is that we do not see, and I would not go as far as to assume it to be such a specific definition of God. I consider both strict atheism and strict devotion to a religion to be illogical, but that is only my personal opinion and I try not to insult people for simply being theists. That only makes people more close-minded. I don't think all theists are brainwashed. Everyone is entitled to their own view of the universe.

At 4/26/07 12:35 AM, Saveo wrote: There's Taco's cold, hard facts again ^_~ I agree with him on this one.

Thanks man! Wish I had cold hard facts to backup everything I said, but I'm too unfocused for that. @_@

At 4/25/07 10:51 PM, SolInvictus wrote:

At 4/25/07 10:46 PM, HighlyIllogical wrote: It would certainly have prevented him from killing 32 people.

that is unfotunatley just an assumption.

Agreed. Banning guns doesn't make them disappear. Do you really think a CRIMINAL is going to not buy a gun because it's ILLEGAL?

At 4/26/07 12:21 AM, Elfer wrote:

Not to mention that all that burning paper is the real cause of global warming, what with it being more exothermic than a thousand supernovas.

Um, I'm pretty sure smoking is not the leading cause of global warming. Wasn't it auto emissions? Sources maybe? I'd like to see. :)

At 4/25/07 11:57 PM, Saveo wrote: That is the EXACT one I was thinking of. Many thanks ^_~

No prob, somebody else showed me that anyways. :)

Interesting theory though eh?

At 4/25/07 11:51 PM, Saveo wrote: There's a lot of space out there, and with so much space, there are many planets. With so many planets, there are probably other life forms. With other life forms there are probably aliens with enough intelligence to contact us, and probably will / have. I believe there is an equation on that very subject out there somewhere...

Is it this equation? :)

The government doesn't have to regulate everything. There doesn't have to be a law for everything that mildly bothers some people. People should have the courtesy not to smoke in other people's faces, there doesn't have to be a law about it. We're not going to ban chewing gum because a few rude people stick it everywhere you're going to put your hands. I agree, however, that steps should be taken to make sure that people who cannot do anything to get away from it should be protected. But you can walk out of a restaraunt.

Ah no, meant to post that in the smoking topic, sorry guys.

The government doesn't have to regulate everything. There doesn't have to be a law for everything that mildly bothers some people. People should have the courtesy not to smoke in other people's faces, there doesn't have to be a law about it. We're not going to ban chewing gum because a few rude people stick it everywhere you're going to put your hands. I agree, however, that steps should be taken to make sure that people who cannot do anything to get away from it should be protected. But you can walk out of a restaraunt.

Ramen by itself is fine to me, especially if you get one of those flavored kinds. I've never been a big fan of PB&J, I just prefer making nachos myself...

To quote South Park:

"You bureaucrats have no right to play God and take that tube out!"

"No, no, you see, they were playing God when they put the feeding tube IN!"

So guys, should I make a YTMND and Ebaums sig or WadeFulp and Bedn sig out of the Israel-Palestine sig?

The choice is yours! Not really!

At 4/25/07 04:31 PM, Debauchery wrote:

The life of Jesus is the prime example of a perfect life, almost everyone on planet Earth agress with that.

Are you sure?

Hm, I suppose currency could be adjusted to combat inflation but I wonder if it's worth all the money it would cost to put a totally new system of currency into place.
I heard Argentina had a fun economic time too.

Already have.

At 4/23/07 10:47 PM, fli wrote: STICK IT Out of MY BUTT, SWEETY

Rearranged for great justice.

At 4/23/07 09:01 PM, SkunkyFluffy wrote:

At 4/23/07 09:00 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote: Unless you actually want something done.

Does anybody remember back in the day when Macs wouldn't let you name two objects in a folder the same thing, even if they weren't the same type of file? My Mac-using friend says they don't do that anymore, but I remember being exceedingly frustrated throughout my school years...My school district never used anything else, and it pissed me off.

Times have changed since then. Why would you need to do that, anyways? Macs got a huge makeover with OS X and now, regardless of what they were before (I still love Classic Macs very much) they are very pretty machines which are good for a lot of uses. Windows may have more apps but OS X totally rips it up in security and interface. Microsoft carbon-copied a lot of OS X features for Vista, and Vista still has many issues. The compatibility/gaming issue doesn't really exist anymore since you can run Windows on Macs now anyways so, woot for Mac!

At 4/23/07 09:00 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

Once you go Mac you don't never go back... mostly...

Unless you actually want something done.

In my opinion it's easier to get things done when you're not flooded by tides and tides of malware.

At 4/23/07 08:52 PM, HighlyIllogical wrote: Valid to whom? Not valid to the animal you just brained with a .30-06. Hunting is silly, IMHO, but you should be allowed to do it. But only when it's heavily regulated and only with single shot weapons, such as black powder rifles and bows.

?? Won't that just make it more painful to the animal than something more sophisticated?

At 4/23/07 08:55 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

At 4/23/07 08:50 PM, TheShrike wrote:

At 4/23/07 08:43 PM, SkunkyFluffy wrote:

Only if you're the catcher.

Or if you somehow like the ungodly Macintosh.

I still remeber that you banned me because of a Mac joke.

Ungodly? =\ What could be more godly than something created by the almighty Apple itself?

Once you go Mac you don't never go back... mostly...

At 4/23/07 08:50 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

Then why are you so opposed to government-mandated health-care AFTER the person is born?

Because it's not the Federal governments place to burden the taxpayer on someone else's health.

Then why do you want the government to intervene on the unborn's health?

At 4/23/07 07:40 PM, LordJaric wrote:

At 4/23/07 07:36 PM, SyntheticTacos wrote: Before baby is born: We must protect the fetus!

Afterwards: It should help itself!

And how is a new born baby going to help it's self.

Exactly. The point I am making is that a lot of the same people who want abortion outlawed are also opposed to helping people after their born, because supposedly they should do it themselves even when the people in question can't.

At 4/23/07 08:42 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

Because people have this inate compasion towards protecting the life of an individual. And considering that protecting the life of the individual is one of it's rights.

Then why are you so opposed to government-mandated health-care AFTER the person is born?

At 4/23/07 06:36 PM, SyntheticTacos wrote: Hmm, maybe women would be more likely to detect the pregnancy before the third trimester if there was better health-care for people who can't afford it.

Oh, but that's not the government's JOB is it?

Sorry, but I don't get how the guys who are normally opposed to the government helping the people are also here opposing abortion.

Okay, I'm gonna clarify that, dumb sarcasm aside. What I'm saying is that if the conservatives are saying you gotta do stuff yourself, why do they care about the people who aren't even born yet if as soon as they're born it's not their problem any more?

Before baby is born: We must protect the fetus!

Afterwards: It should help itself!

Hmm, maybe women would be more likely to detect the pregnancy before the third trimester if there was better health-care for people who can't afford it.

Oh, but that's not the government's JOB is it?

Sorry, but I don't get how the guys who are normally opposed to the government helping the people are also here opposing abortion.

Anyways, as far as where the line goes for abortions depends on when a baby is developed enough to count as a thinking feeling human being. Somewhere between birth and being a pile of goo with around the same intelligence as a simple sperm cell. Whether the third trimester is where that line is I am not sure.

Communism fails because of human instinct to abuse power. Even if communism was perfectly carried out as Marx intended, it still limits a person's liberty because it disallows the free market, correct? I still need to research it more.

At 4/23/07 06:14 PM, Demosthenez wrote:

At 4/23/07 05:37 PM, HighlyIllogical wrote: Providing jobs to make the homeless self-sustaining members of society is a moral imperative.

Do it yourself then if you think it is such a "moral imperative." Dont force me to.

Perhaps if our government invested in education and in providing jobs, we might be able to alleviate some of the poverty that exists in the US.

We spend some of the most per pupil and the most overall. And education spending has been steadily rising under Bush, just as funding for nearly every program has risen.

This is almost more than all our military expenditures combined. Remember, the Iraq War spending is factored into this.

Throwing more money is not the solution. The solution is reforming our corrupt system and allow some actual choice in schools. If that means voucher programs or just attaching a flat $10,000 to a student to go to whatever public school they want, that is what we need. What we dont need is the current government monopoly on education that we have that fosters absolutely no competition.

Speaking of education, we'd have lower drop-out rates and we'd have less crime if so many students did not live in impoverished areas and were not impoverished themseves. Crime breeds in many low-income areas where people feel that they have no other choice. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that crime is right, I'm just saying that in many areas, crime is breeded by poverty. And how many students can afford $10,000 to go to school? o_O

And it's not as if private schools don't exist. They're just not as popular because... they cost money, and a lotta people are already struggling to make ends meet as it is. I am all for allowing private schools, its just that they haven't caught on because many people can't afford them. And that might, as you said, be a result of the government monopoly on education.. below college-level anyways. I dunno if the solution is totally getting rid of public education. Having an educated populace is important to a strong economy.

At 4/23/07 12:58 AM, Demosthenez wrote:

At 4/22/07 10:46 PM, SyntheticTacos wrote: Okay, let's say someone works for a company, and is a good worker and has a home and steady job and good standard of living, okay?

Then he should get another job. If he is as good a workers as you claim he will have plenty of opportunities to get a new job, probably a better one since he has more experience now and has more doors open to pursue his new job in. If he ends up homeless after this he frankly deserves it.

BTW, misleading vivideness.

Fair enough, a lot of that is relevant, but the main point is sometimes people get cheated out of their job with none of it being a result of his own poor mistakes. The point is that the blame does not always rest on the poor themselves. Jobs aren't flying off Dr. Tran's grill like hickory smoked horse buttholes. Metaphorically speaking.

At 4/22/07 10:19 PM, SyntheticTacos wrote: It is the government's job to help its own citizens.

You really consider yourself a libertarian and you believe that?

I am most likely not a pure libertarian, of course, it is foolish most of the time to devote yourself to any "ism." However I don't see anything with that statement that conflicts with libertarianism except that it is a little unclear. Rather it should say that it is government's job to help its own citizens when the citizens consent to such help. If you don't want to be helped you don't have to be. Wikipedia defines libertarianism as "a political philosophy maintaining that all persons are the absolute owners of their own lives, and should be free to do whatever they wish with their persons or property, provided they allow others the same liberty and avoid harming others by abusing their liberty." Sounds good to me. If you're trying to say that the govt. using tax dollars for social programs that help the impoverished is violating citizens' rights, I would disagree because in my view that is one of the purposes of government- to ensure the standard of living and keep its country from being an impoverished hell. Taxes are there to fund the tasks of government and I do not see this as an abuse of these funds.

That may sound all nice but thats all it is, a soundbite. It doesnt really mean anything concrete and only a fool would disagree with it on face value. Its like one of those oxymoronic policies or laws that are passed because what kind of commie would disagree with the "Department of Homeland Security?" I certainly want homeland security.

But as is common with soundbites like that, it ignores reality. The Department of Homeland Security is a bloated beaurcracy that was entirely un-needed.

There is nothing patriotic about the Patriot Act.

Agreed.

Operation Iraqi Freedom was not about Iraqis, it was about Saddam and weapons.

Saddam and oil, rather.

And the government does not have the responsibility to help its citizens.The only responsibility the government holds is in survival, not how to best baby their citizenry throughout their life.

The govt.'s job isn't to be our mommy and punish us when we do drugs and hurt ourselves, but in order for a country to survive and be powerful it does not help to lower your HDI and keep your citizens in rags.

People, you all need to live and do things yourself instead of looking to the government to fix all the worlds woes and problems. If you want to fix homelessnes, do it yourself, dont force people to pay money for an agenda and policy they dont agree with.

Majority rule with minority rights. Even if the majority of people disagree with something that doesn't mean minority rights do not still stand. If most people said that guns should be illegal hopefully gun rights would still be protected under the Second Amendment. The people can't fix homelessness if the government does nothing to ensure that its people have a decent standard of living. Governments are here to insure that people have their liberties protected, and if people have no resources in this world they have no liberty.

At 4/23/07 12:49 AM, MortifiedPenguins wrote: To stop global warming is to stop humanity's eventually end.

Both are inevitable and both are and will be impossible to stop.

The best thing one can do is prepare for what will happen and make the best of it.

To make a comparison, global warming is like a train.

Most people try to outrun it, but they'll eventually be hit.

The best thing to do is sit right down and wait for it to come.

?? Do you just not want us to do anything about anything ever?

You really don't think it would help to at least try to lessen the effects so at least more people won't be damaged by the effects of global warming?

At 4/22/07 10:48 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

To defend the rights and freedoms set down by our Constitution and Bill of Rights, to defend the people from invasion and attack of any kind and to make sure that the country runs smoothly and efficently.

If the people are dying and impoverished, I don't think that makes the country run smoothly and efficiently.