Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

---

Hey guys. Did you know people can fly? You just have to spread your arms and run really fast. Here's a video of a person flying. Even science has shown that people can move through air and objects can generate lift. We all have this ability.

Hey guys. Did you know that telekinesis is real? You just have to will it. Here's a website of a guy who's making a career of being telekinetic. Even science has shown that people can lift things up. We can all lift things up.

---

At 3/10/11 07:47 AM, JordanD wrote: Because the mind is more powerful than any medication out there.

Curing cancer with sugar pills doesn't get filed under 'placebo effect', though you seem to be implying that it does.

Either way... it's time for you to break out the sources.

---

At 3/9/11 08:23 PM, Gario wrote: "...or can but does not want to."

The dilemma already accounts for that. If you're looking for an exception you haven't hit on it (maybe just some implication/facet of it.)

I guess if this continues from here we aught to move over to the other thread.

---

At 3/9/11 08:26 PM, JordanD wrote: Is this a topic worth discussing to you guys? I have quite a bit more and I'd love to hear what everyone here thinks about it.

I was once a deaf mute, chained to antidepressants and other various medications, until one day I met a little black boy at a basketball court. He showed me that I didn't need those medications as long as I believed I didn't! etc etc etc...

I suspect this plot line is familiar to you.

---

At 3/9/11 06:34 PM, LazyDrunk wrote: If he's the only one who can influence things.

That doesn't contest the epicurean dilemma.

---

At 3/9/11 04:29 PM, shootinggames wrote: But personal experience still means a lot. Its stupid when some intellectual guy who has never left his classroom claims to know more about other countries than the people living there.

Please make up your mind as to whether it "means a lot" or "means everything."

---

I'll toss in one more thing...

... regarding the 'God punishes because he's like a parent' argument.

There's a big difference between a human being and an omnipotent one.

---

At 3/4/11 02:31 PM, Imperator wrote: tl;dr religious moderates have the biggest potential to be dicks.

Well... religious moderates aren't true Christians.

---

And remember, if you're not particularly charitable, you are in no way helping society and most importantly, in no way a good person - or at least nearly as good a person as someone who is charitable.

For instance, if I was charitable, I could amusedly entertain the notion of watching someone suffocate in front of a group of people, and still be way better than everyone else.

---

At 2/24/11 08:13 AM, samwd1717 wrote: I can stand it its just I cant UNDERstand it

So start up a discussion. I'll keep it to simple sentences. I'll use simple words.

which can be easily shortend to a 10 word sentenace, you dont NEED detail

You say this happens continuously. You say you need a dictionary for every word. So, give us an example where a wall of text can be simplified to a ten word sentence. It must keep it's entire meaning.

---

At 2/23/11 06:03 AM, WolvenBear wrote: Except that wasn't even remotely my argument.

"Being openly hostile to religion, and actively persecuting most religious people means he certainly wasn't religious."

Remotely, I think so. Though after reading below, if such thoughts are embodied in the above quote, then I'm alright with it.

This is actually an interesting challenge. [...]

On a side note. I appreciate your tact in this section of your reply.

Then I admittedly miss the distinction. It's not often I have to ask for clarifiation. But I do here. If you've made a point, I missed it.

Irreligious != atheist.

---

At 2/21/11 07:09 AM, WolvenBear wrote: Even if I'm wrong, I have a chance at winning the "Roulette"
[...]
There is no downside to being a theist and being wrong.

These two statement appear to be competing.

---

At 2/21/11 06:17 AM, WolvenBear wrote: Wait, before you celebrate, hold up. I know where you were going. [...]
I never claimed all religion is peaceful. But it was a nice try!

My argument wasn't made to dispute the claim that "all religion is peaceful," and actually relies on the notion that Al Qaeda is a religious group. You shot down an argument I'm not making and affirmed a tenant of the argument I am making. Meanwhile, the issue of whether or not Al Qaeda is instructed by text is irrelevant to the point I'm making.

The point I'm making is that, if Al Qaeda were to acquire the means, they would be hostile to religion, and actively persecute most religious people. This would not render Al Qaeda irreligious. In other words, being hostile to religion and actively persecuting religious people does not make one irreligious.

And this is particularly the case if you're going to de-contextualize Hitler's contempt for-certain-religions as contempt for-religion (itself - being implied). Wasn't it you who said he could've been Buddhist or taoist? If I'm to believe that you've actually committed to your logical construct, then it should be inferable that you haven't found instances of Hitler attacking Buddhism or Taoism. So it's dishonest of you to phrase Hitler as being "hostile to religion," so as to imply or get away with such absolutism as deriving from the phrase that Hitler was irreligious.

Keep in mind for the above that I'm not actually arguing that you're wrong to say Hitler was irreligious.

So, am I supposed to repeat myself every time I am asked a question I have already addressed? Look above.

Copy paste it if you're so certain you've addressed it. Cause I can't find it. Painless, no?

Capitalizing God for a religious person is like capitalizing Robert, or Tommy, or Mike.

Exactly.

Do you have a point?

Are you done guessing?

Ironically, despite inadvertanly agreeing with me

It wasn't accidental. My dispute with you doesn't revolve around the notion that Hitler must be religious. So, 'admitting' that the evidence suggests that he was irreligious, didn't really seem all that big a deal. The 'admission' was made to communicate a distinction that actually is of consequence to my dispute with you.

---

At 2/20/11 06:55 AM, WolvenBear wrote: Being openly hostile to religion, and actively persecuting most religious people means he certainly wasn't religious.

So if, say, Al Qaeda had the political and economic means to accomplish their 'greater' goal, and subsequently carried it out in full force, they would be irreligious?

I think we can say he certainly wasn't Jewish. And his treatment of Christians discounts his Christianity.

And the lack of a record of atheists in death camps means he was on their side?

When one tends to not believe in God or religion, and tend to hurt other people who do, that makes me think they're an atheist.

Disbelief in (a Christian) God + hurting people who believe = atheist.
Disbelief in religion + hurting people who believe = atheist.

Do you know what an atheist is? Did you not think I'd notice you capitalizing God?

The evidence shows that at most he was irreligious. ( And the fact that hollow pandering, such as "I'm doing the Lord's work," was consequential to Hitler keeping favor with a substantial religious contingent is testament to the danger of religion. )

---

Ericho, I was being incredulous. Your response might be better aimed at Wolvenbear.

---

At 2/19/11 05:22 AM, WolvenBear wrote: Um, no he wasn't. He regarded Christianity as a slave religion. And he jailed and killed Christians like crazy.

As even the straight dope, hardly a Christian fan club admits, most Nazis acknowledged that Nazism and Christianity were polar opposites:

Therefore he was atheist?

---

At 2/18/11 04:11 PM, CacheHelper wrote: For the sake of this conversation [ ... in which ... ] I let you choose [ ... ]

That is not the context under which I asked you to clarify whether you agree to ALL FOUR axioms (not just the first).

---

At 2/17/11 01:47 AM, Gario wrote: If the definition is based on the principle of 'apostolic succession' then they're all Catholic. If it's based on "..the ... universal church having unity, visibility, indefectibility, apostolic succession, universality, and sanctity..." then those that defected can't be a part of that definition

I think something's hiding in those ellipses.

---

At 2/16/11 02:29 AM, Gario wrote: No, wrong again. [...]

I don't want to elbow my way in here... but, it seemed to me that everything after "no, wrong again," was exemplifying what Imperator said.

---

At 2/10/11 11:28 AM, CacheHelper wrote: I don't understand... how did I discredit their claims?

"I would think that, according to you, the term "religious war" is fundamentally dishonest."

How you got from that to the idea that I was disputing historical record is beyond me. That aside, I hope that sounds familiar. Consider that the 'thesis.' So you know where I'm 'finishing.'

Let's look at where I'm starting, and make sure it's a viable starting point. You've set up several, we'll call them, axioms. Tell me if you're alright with the following...

1. All morals exist either because of personal choice or religion, exclusively. In other words, if any moral exists because of personal choice, the same must be said for all morals, and, if any moral exists because of religion, the same must be said for all morals. Otherwise one is "picking and choosing."

2. Morals exist because of personal choice. As a point of clarification, pulling a moral value from religion does not generate a moral value that exists because of religion. This, according to axiom 1, excludes the notion that morals exist because of religion.

3. { Acting upon a moral value } and { the existence of moral values } are treated equivalently, such that axioms 1 and 2 also apply to one's choice to act on moral values.

4. A religious war is a war engaged "in the name of religion."

"[...] neccessary [...] personal benefits."

Are you implying that religion doesn't fall under any of these categories?

Nope. I'm implying that your argument was myopic, maybe intentionally so.

---

At 2/9/11 11:36 AM, CacheHelper wrote: OK... so then it was the second time I said I didn't understand. My bad. Point is, I still told you I didn't understand.

Under a context in which saying so meant no more or less than your original inquiry. You're using your own words out of context.

I told you I didn't understand. I answered the best I could, as I understood it. I don't know what else you want me to do.

Try not to straw man, and then lie about it. So let's try this again...

The thing I'm getting hung up on is why you don't think you've already discredited their claims.

If you still choose to dislike religion (for this reason), you should also dislike all of the other, more risky, aspects of life.

"[...] neccessary [...] personal benefits."

---

At 2/8/11 09:43 PM, UltimateAxl wrote: The only true God that is visible, is inside our souls.

So what about it renders it a god?

---

At 2/8/11 06:15 PM, CacheHelper wrote: If your reasons for disliking something are based on the odds of it causing a war, then you should dislike a large number of things (ownership, politics, etc)... as well as religion.

"as I understand it risk managment isn't about avoiding risk all together"

---

At 2/8/11 06:21 PM, CacheHelper wrote: I told you the first time I didn't understand.

No you didn't.

This is how you first reacted: Did we uncover a large number of wars fought in the name of religion that I'm unaware of?

Then, after I told you that I wasn't making that argument, you said you didn't understand my point, asked how you discredited their claim, but qualified the inquiry as being almost exactly what you asked initially. You by no means demonstrated that you had taken into account what I said, but rather reinforced your appearance of being unwilling to recognize anything but that for which you have your response as relevant or I guess even existent. Even now, if I'm to assume you're not being intentionally deceptive, you're conflating, "I don't understand your argument" with "Did we uncover a large number of wars fought in the name of religion that I'm unaware of?".

Cache. In this post and the last, on two separate issues, you flat out lied about your actions. Are you aware of this?

I have no idea what you're getting at with this whole Huck Finn business. I guess I can no longer answer your questions until you explain it further

You delete the portion of my post that says that you're capitalizing on (exploiting) my bothering to explain myself. Then you say the discussion can't continue unless I explain myself.

Is that spiteful, reconciliatory, or unintentional? I honestly can't tell.

---

At 2/7/11 02:08 PM, CacheHelper wrote: Then I don't understand your point. How did I discredit their claims? ...and if I did, how did I so with enough variation to alter the Religious-to-nonReligious-war ratio enough to change my initial point?

Once again, did we uncover a few hundred religious wars that I'm unaware of?

Uhhh... thats the argument I just told you I wasn't making. Want to try that again? You started out pretty well.

No. Not unless the censorship requires that we destroy all related historical records.

Wait... has your argument all this time actually been absolutist as oppose to comparative?

yet this entire response was based around the wording of my point. Do you understand what I'm saying or not?

I am disputing your wording, but that's not exactly what you charged me with. Are you cognisant that what you asked me carried a hefty portion of baggage that's missing from how you're now characterizing my argument?

Is it annoying when people ignore the point of a statement and focus on the details? Wow, that must really suck...

Except I'm disputing your point(s). You seem to be capitalizing on my bothering to explain why. (I'm not saying you haven't explained yourself).

---

At 2/5/11 09:52 PM, Saen wrote: The morning after pill prevents the egg from fertilizing by layering it with an impenetrable coating.

Uhhh... since when?

---

The morning after pill can constitute abortion, depending on where the female is in her cycle.

---

At 2/4/11 01:20 AM, BigMike47 wrote: Honestly I think that both factions Atheism and theism both know that there is no way resolving or point in arguing with each other of basically who is "best." [...] atheism is the belief that man himself is the master of his destiny is not bound by the laws of God

It is not intrinsic to atheism that man is the master of his own destiny, nor intrinsic to theism that he his not.

Hopefully you understand there's more to 'the debate' than who's got the better belief system.

---

At 2/4/11 12:56 PM, CacheHelper wrote: Did we uncover a large number of wars fought in the name of religion that I'm unaware of?

Consequentially, the portion of this reply that you cut was relevant to the portion you didn't. In other words, what you're suggesting is not my argument.

I really don't understand.

Huck Finn was part of an addendum to the list of things that can reasonably be considered dangerous. It is essentially an analogy.

Only if you consciously made the decision to favor the censored version over the non-censored version.

Would you agree that censorship is a threat to historical preservation?

I have gone back numerious times and explained my reasons for saying such thing.

You argued against a broad misleading statement with a broad misleading statement, then justified it by the notion that your broad statement was a colloquialism, while the one you replied to was deception.

We've covered how it's not dangerous in other ways as well. Stem Cell research, war, extremest (suicide bombings)... is there another one you would like to discuss?

Those are all cases in which religion is dangerous.

Or are you just going to claim that because I didn't word my response the way you wanted it to be worded it no longer counts?

Nope. I'm not. And have not been. Though, you're begging otherwise.

)

Why are you so preoccupied with trying to piss me off?

---

At 2/3/11 01:14 PM, CacheHelper wrote:

At 2/2/11 05:03 PM, Bacchanalian wrote: Or more importantly, how do you, Cache, brand any war religious?

How do I personally decide? Me, I don't know...

It's funny. This wasn't meant to be a trick question, but going through your posts, looking for something else you said... I came across this...

"The only way "more wars" is going to change the point I'm making is if those wars not only occured, but occured in the name of religion."

I'll just second their methods until someone can discredit their claims.

The thing I'm getting hung up on is why you don't think you've already discredited their claims.

I would think that, according to you, the term "religious war" is fundamentally dishonest.

This seems like a trick question... are we speaking in techincal terms where every activity and everything on the planet is dangerous... or are we speaking in lamens terms where we only consider high-risk activites or those that contain more bad then good dangerous?

You seem to be intent on disregarding that context plays a rather big role in what the every day response to a given dilemma might be. You also seem to be intent on disregarding that you are supplying such a context.

Are we talking about the act of buying the book, or the aspect that the book has been censored?

Both. Hence the specificity as to what book.

Would it be equally dangerous to buy any other book?

Abstractly, probably. Though it'd be pretty hard to quantify, and I'm not sure such quantification is particularly relevant. Though, you seem to think otherwise.

In what way does this relate to the topic of religion?

Are you playing with me or did you just feel like you needed to ask another question to drive home the point that my question was ambiguous? Or do you not actually know?

Do you realize you're also begging the question?

I don't personally agree with the censorship of the book but I wouldn't personally consider buying the book a dangerous activity. Although, I do not support the idea of censorship I do support the rights and abilities of the property owner to be able to choose to do what they want with their property. At that point, it's up to the individual to decide if this is a choice they want to support.

Would you say buying the book endorses censorship?

No... as I understand it risk managment isn't about avoiding risk all together

Who's arguing that risk should be avoided all together?

Yeah, if I was writing an offical document for a scientific project or about to post an article in a national newspaper or magazine read by millons of people.

Or if you were arguing against, say, broad misleading statements for being just that - and disputing them on account of further consideration under additional contexts.

It's not like I said [system x] is bad and left it at that...

Who did?

I didn't tell him he couldn't feel that way

Which of the two charges is that suppose to fall under?

I just pointed out that religion isn't nearly as dangerous as the sterotype would imply and that if he's going to dislike religion because of it's danger then he should also dislike other things due to their 'more-danger' (for lack of a better word).

Actually... you responded to his post with a tally of wars and the remark, "Turns out, religion isn't all that dangerious after all..."

You were...

1) responding the claim that "religion is dangerous" with the claim that "religion is not dangerous."
2) rebracketing super6nacho's argument to concern only war.

What's particularly interesting is that: if someone says religion is dangerous, you claim it's meant to imply that it's more dangerous than driving a car etc., yet, if you claim religion is not, you're merely speaking in layman's terms.

On the one hand, such finer points pertaining to how innocuous religion is, absent from an expression of how dangerous religion is, constitutes deception - and the disregard for various other dangerous things amounts to hypocrisy. On the other hand, such finer points pertaining to how dangerous religion is, absent from an expression of how innocuous religion is, with explicit regard for any number of other dangerous things for comparison, amounts to layman speak. I'd say attempting to compare (even abstract) numbers between a vast array of dangers and religion is far more technical than saying "religion isn't dangerous" or the converse. And if the one isn't inherently some deceptive ploy, I don't see why the other can only be that.

Correction: Some ducks are flightless. There still exists other ducks that can indeed fly. :)

Alternatively, you could have inferred from the conclusion that the semantic game being played was not augmentative. Or, you could have made the lesser presumptuous correction, that the conclusion does not necessarily follow. Your correction, while capitalizing on the ambiguity in my language, was unfortunately, a little to eager to assume only one solution. Oddly enough, this has greater significance to our discussion than merely being a snide attempt at suggesting my cow-duck analogy was hypocritical.

Though, how that changes the point of the analogy, you'll have to help me with.