Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 10/23/13 12:01 AM, Sense-Offender wrote:

I never said he wasn't a hypocrite. But yeah, he identified as Catholic. The Christians who perpetrated the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition didn't honor that commandment either, but they sure were Christians.

Hitler only publicly identified that way. He was utterly disdainful of Christianity in private, though he was not an atheist.

At 5/8/13 05:54 PM, Angry-Hatter wrote:

At 5/8/13 04:40 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 5/8/13 01:08 PM, GameChild214 wrote: We cannot know with certainty if God or Christ exists. They COULD. Then again there COULD be a giant reptilian bird in charge of everything. Can we be CERTAIN there isn't? NO, so it's pointless to talk about it.

If this is truly how you believe, you're not an atheist.

Sounds to me as the beginnings of an agnostic argument. I would agree with him as far as the remote possibility for each of these things being true, as well as it being impossible to know the truth regarding these things with absolute certainty (with the exception of the existence of Christ, where I believe there is a significant amount of evidence to suggest that he, as depicted in the Bible, did in fact NOT exist).

I acknowledge that these things COULD be true, yet I am an atheist as I don't BELIEVE that they are true.

What does certainty have to do with anything? Not being 100 percent certain of something is just called being sane. Agnosticism is about understanding that metaphysical claims are beyond human understanding.

I see nothing wrong with celebrating the death of a bad person

At 2/27/11 11:41 AM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 2/27/11 09:02 AM, WolvenBear wrote: I have made is an undisputed scientifict FACT.

again, the debate here says it's not. Source. Just do it. Stop balking. Seriously, just source. i have asked you for proof and you have done is beat your cheast saying "NO POOFS NEEDEDS! YOU BE Teh STOOPID IF YOU DON'T KNOW!"

How about you just source it up. You claim baby is alive at conception. Prove it. Seriously, just prove it. I could repeat this request one millions times, so how's about you do it.

Sorry, but it's pretty obvious that an embryo is living matter. He's right there. I would however, like to see a scientific proof that the mere state of being both alive and human automatically grants a fetus all the rights of a baby, child, adolescent, or adult. I see no reason to take it for granted that it does.

At 2/15/11 12:10 AM, WolvenBear wrote:

No, they actually aren't. Much as a 10 year old and a 15 year old aren't really different.

Just claiming that things are different doesn't make them so.

Right, much like 99 percent of the fetuses that are aborted, a baby isn't able to feel, sense pain or pleasure, or able to exist outside of its mother. Oh wait

At 2/7/11 08:37 AM, MatthewF wrote: Abstinence worked for me I stayed a virgin until I was married but then again I'm not a weak-willed pussy (so to speak) when it comes to the pink unlike most other guys.

I'm not a weak-willed pussy because I've had premarital sex. I chose to do it of my own free will.

But to reiterate. So long as condoms and other methods of birth control are not absolutely and exactly 100 percent effective, and so long as humans do dumb things and get themselves or their partner's pregnant without intending to, abortion will remain important and necessary.

At 2/9/11 01:09 AM, Korriken wrote: I'm single, but not because I can't find a woman. I'm single because I prefer to live free and not be bound to another person.

right

What if the woman is just dumb and doesn't use birth control?

Incorrect, mechanization does not eliminate jobs. The fundamental premise of your argument is wrong.

http://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_on _global_population_growth.html?utm_sourc e=newsletter_weekly_2010-07-12&utm_campa ign=newsletter_weekly&utm_medium=email

You can close the topic now.

At 1/19/11 02:12 PM, Bacchanalian wrote: Right... we can't have atheism rubbing off it's bad smell on agnosticism.

That's one way of putting it, yes.

At 1/19/11 12:24 PM, RubberTrucky wrote:

At 1/19/11 09:45 AM, Bacchanalian wrote:

At 1/19/11 06:59 AM, RubberTrucky wrote: 1. Accept you can't know and leave the question aside unanswered.

If you accept that you can't (classically) know... you are agnostic.

Not answering the question is implicitly atheistic.

Well, there is a spectrum of agnosticism, but what I mean with atheist is that you answer the question with 'no there isn't a God'. But I agree that this is not the formal meaning of atheist.

Then again, let us steer away from the formal clssification of atheism and theism.

There is no agreed-upon formal classification of atheism. Dawkins, Sagan, Russell, Camus took "atheism" to mean the positive denial of God's existence, while Flew and some people on the internet take it to mean "lack of belief in deities" I prefer the former definition. I am agnostic, but not an atheist.

Yeah, because mainline Anglicans are so much like Primitive Baptists that it's easy to lump the two into the same category, yeah that makes a lotta sense. What? Eric Rudolph bombed abortion clinics and wasn't Catholic? preposterous! This guy are sick

At 12/9/10 11:23 PM, Ravariel wrote: Math is descriptive, not proscriptive, and description requires cognition which requires social interaction between a mind and the physical world.

Math is actually one of the most cultural things in the universe.

You're misusing the word cultural.

At 12/18/10 06:35 AM, WolvenBear wrote:

Actuallly, I have. I've given two options. I've given the existance of morality, which exists beyond human reasoning. Or there is preference, which exists at public whim. I've given these answers DOZENS of times. And I'm tired of repeating myself so I'll just ignore stupid answers that ask me to from here on out.

That's a false dichotomy. Your definition of morality is wrong. From Webster's

Morality
a doctrine or system of moral conduct

Ctrl+F "beyond human reasoning" hmm nope.

There's a huge amount of intersections without those either. We'll add "knowing what you're talking about" to the things you suck at.

completely missing the point is something you excel at though.

Yet, here's the problem. It's impossible to call one right or one wrong under your worldview.

How's that a problem? I gladly accept that. I like my system more than yours, and think it's better for the health and happiness of society. I don't care whether it's "right" or "wrong" beyond that. And I reallydon't care whether you or whatever God you believe in thinks my system is "right" or "wrong" either.

Actually that's completely false, Abortions are more frequent now than at any point since the 1970s. Not only that, the Supreme Court at its most conservative held up the precedent set in Roe v Wade several times. Now the court is more liberal than it was even then. Oops.

Jesus. That's devastating. And if any of that was right....I'd be sad. Of course, every single part of that is wrong, or irrelevant. The Supreme Court (apparently more conservative now than ever)

Right, because Kagan and Sotomayor are really conservative.

issued the first ever upholding of restriction on abortion by upholding the Partial Birth Abortion Ban.
Actually, Intact dilation and extraction (IDX), aka "partial-birth" abortion made up slightly more than one tenth of a percent of all abortions in the US before being "banned" secondly, the actual legislation provided certain exceptions for certain cases. Because of these exceptions for maternal health, The number of partial-birth abortions performed in the US is...about one tenth of a percent of all abortions. Try doing some actual research beyond wikipedia.

Aw, well that sucks, contrary to your narrative, liberal laws went into effect til 89, then started swinging back.

Not really. Laws have remained basically static so far, with no noticeable affect on the actual amount of abortions performed. notice that the amount of abortions dramatically increased during the Bush administration after declining during the Clinton years.

I've done that repeatedly since my first comment. You're a stupid one aren't you?

Right, you've destroyed your own argument and I'm the stupid one.

Ah, anyone who thinks I'm wrong hates women! The oldest and most ridiculous trick in the book!

Well you are the one who thinks women can be ordered what to do with their bodies.

At 12/10/10 12:29 AM, Ravariel wrote:

Show me an integer.

show me a culture that doesn't have a concept of an integer.

At 12/16/10 11:39 AM, sharpnova wrote: The debate isn't waged with any of that in mind. People are firmly on one end of the spectrum or the other.

Yeah, I'm firmly on one end of the spectrum, but I understand why the people on the other end of the spectrum believe what they do, as much as I disagree with them. For the life of me I can't understand a word of the gibberish you're spewing out though.

I know religious people like you live in a completely black and white world.. but it's time to wake up.

Are you high or something?

At 12/16/10 06:09 AM, Jedi-Master wrote:

At 12/15/10 12:03 PM, VenomKing666 wrote:

At 12/15/10 02:16 AM, Jedi-Master wrote: I could say the VERY SAME thing to you as a pro-life argument if I changed several words.

No you can't. I challenge you to do it.

You said:If you are that much of an asshole to tell someone else if they should keep or not their baby it's time to revisit your morals

My version for the lulz:
If you are that much of an asshole to tell someone else that they can abort their baby anytime, then it's time to revisit your morals.

Ugh, he really shouldnt've originally used the word baby. But either way, that's a misrepresentation of the Pro-choice position as I doubt many of us consider fetuses to be babies.

I suppport this just to see anime nerds rage against it.

At 12/15/10 11:50 AM, sharpnova wrote:

But you can't be both. If you are, you won't see it as Pro-life vs Pro-choice. You'll see it as a wide continuous spectrum that is far from black and white.

*yawn*

Enough with this. I'm sick of people chiming in with "it's not as black and white as it seems!" as if it's the most profound thing ever spoken. Of course it isn't. "Pro-life" and "pro-choice" are just imperfect descriptions given out of convention to two generally different positions on the issue of abortion and bodily rights. But it's a useful convention, which is more than I can say for anything you've said thus far.

Maybe we have different standards for what "intelligent" means. I tend to think of "intelligent" people as those who are far above the norm in genetic intelligence and capacity for abstract thought.

At 12/15/10 02:16 AM, Jedi-Master wrote:

At 12/15/10 02:04 AM, VenomKing666 wrote: Seriously I don't even know why a debate such as this even exists.

If you are that much of an asshole to tell someone else if they should keep or not their baby it's time to revisit your morals.

I could say the VERY SAME thing to you as a pro-life argument if I changed several words.

You could but you'd be completely misrepresenting the Pro-choice position.

At 12/14/10 10:46 AM, WolvenBear wrote: I don't have to. That's the problem here. IF there is no right and wrong, if everything is equal, then the dude who stands on his argument wins. While the moron who claims "everyone is identical man" falls to the wayside. If morality doesn't exist, then I am right, because I say I am right and you say there is no right. If there IS morality, one of use may be right, but you've already acknowledged it isn't you. See how that works? (I'm getting tired of explaining basic human logic 101).

We're not claiming morality doesn't exist, we're asking you why you believe an objective morality given by god exists. Which you've failed to do so far.

That's a big bowl of fail.

what are you, 13? Use grown-up words, please.

More than 90% of all intersections don't have stoplights at them, and things work out just fine. You really don't have a case do you?

Ok stop signs, I'll add "analogies" to the things you're bad at.

Yes, quite. And here's why you're an imbecile. You're arguing that your position is undyably right...while denying the existance of morality. You simply can't have it both ways.

I'm not denying that there exists a code of behavioral conduct that differentiates intentions, decisions, and actions between those that are good (or right) and bad (or wrong). In fact I'm arguing that many different codes of morality exist. You're arguing that only one does.

And it's being curtailed. Oops. Hmmmm.

Actually that's completely false, Abortions are more frequent now than at any point since the 1970s. Not only that, the Supreme Court at its most conservative held up the precedent set in Roe v Wade several times. Now the court is more liberal than it was even then. Oops.

I didn't lose my temper. I used history as a guide. You're just not bright enough to get the point.

You pointed out evidence that directly refuted your argument that a universal morality exited. Good job.

Yea, say that to the Japanese and Germans who spent years in detention who came out with nothing. They did nothing wrong, they hurt no one, but their lives were ruined.

And your point is?

That's the joy of being too stupid to look at history. It tends to disprove theory... And if you don't look at history, you miss all those things that prove you an idiot.

Take your own advice kid.

That doesn't matter.

At 12/9/10 11:23 PM, Ravariel wrote:

Math is actually one of the most cultural things in the universe.

Show me a culture where the the pythagorean theorem doesn't accurately describe the relation of the legs of a right triangle to its hypotenuse then.

At 12/9/10 11:23 PM, Ravariel wrote: Not only that, but the ancient egyptians first discovered the ratio 4000 years ago, well before pythagoras, and so the entirety of egyptian social culture around mathematics can be brought into play.

So Pythagoras discovered it after the Egyptians without knowing that they had discovered it previously?

Math is actually one of the most cultural things in the universe.

Hahaha, oh wow.

At 12/9/10 05:58 PM, Bacchanalian wrote:

At 12/8/10 07:49 PM, The-General-Public wrote: In any right triangle, the area of the square whose side is the hypotenuse (the side opposite the right angle) is equal to the sum of the areas of the squares whose sides are the two legs (the two sides that meet at a right angle).

It's ok to be "off topic" now? Alright... Addressing your claim that using mouthwash is logically incompatible with being pro-life...

While { classifying the use of mouthwash as immoral } would be a logical implication of some potential pro-life rationales, those rationales are not required to be pro-life.

I thought we'd settled this discussion pages ago by deciding that you were paranoid and read things into my posts that I never said.

Wolvenbear reminds me a lot of the goofball caller in this video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tq7-GuiLG Z8

At 12/8/10 06:34 PM, Ravariel wrote:

At 12/8/10 05:37 PM, The-General-Public wrote:

At 12/8/10 12:41 PM, SolInvictus wrote:

Okay, do it. I dare you to create something completely independent of the social, even only hypothetically.

In any right triangle, the area of the square whose side is the hypotenuse (the side opposite the right angle) is equal to the sum of the areas of the squares whose sides are the two legs (the two sides that meet at a right angle).

And how much do you want to bet that I can find the social connection to it?

I bet you'll find something stupid and claim that it's a social connection.

At 12/8/10 12:41 PM, SolInvictus wrote: how would you create something neutral and free of social mores?

Pretty easily