Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 1/23/11 01:54 PM, RobJohnson wrote:
Yes there is.

It is not as simple as option A and option B.

Yes. It is. I'm unsure of how many times it must be said to you before you grasp the concept.

Say sometimes you wonder whether you should "eat the cake or not"
and at times you do, but other times you "want to watch your weight"

This is the exact reason why you're wrong. Thank you for proving my point. These thoughts are completely different from the simple, eat cake, don't eat cake idea. Reasomings behind an idea doesn't change the idea.

Sometimes its... If God was real why would he make disease suffering poverty, etc.

Doubts because of cruelty, a usual argument made by sometimes newly converted atheists.

and at other times, I can feel a divine intervention takes place and a life is saved.

Nonproof. something you feel is something that cannot be measured, nor proven, or even observed, it's a nonsensical idea.

I choose to be UNDECIDED.

And in being undecided, you are agnostic, but that doesn't mean you are neither atheist or agnostic.

It's not a difficult concept.

No it's not. Why don't you get it?

At 1/23/11 01:50 PM, RobJohnson wrote:

At 1/23/11 01:19 PM, BigLundi wrote: And you're wrong.

your ignorance is astounding.

I refer you to the poster above me.

To the poster above me. You state that most atheists you've met are like me, and do not give a shit if you believe in a higher power or not. I suppose that's true to a certain extent. I'm reminded of an interview Richard Dawkins had with Wendy Write, where she asked him, "Why is it important I believe such as you do." and Dawkins stated, "It is not important you believe what I believe. It IS important that you allow evidence to guide you." Thsi interview was about evolution being taught in schools. Wendy was against thi, saying the controversy should be taught, and that evolution is not proven fact(though it is). She equated evolution wit hthe belief that there is no god in this interview. Understand your belief in god doesn't matter to the god majority of us, but when you blindly state that god did this or this or this, when science has explained using facts and research that this and this and this is happenning because of something else, it is annoying. It is like if a teacher were to be teaching the holocaust, and someone were to raise their hand and say, "Well, people have lied before, why can't they be lying about the holocaust as well?" It's very annoying that despite facts presented, people cling to ideals because they feel it's some sort of threat to them.

Look at it this way. A good number of religious leaders have now accepted Evolution as truth, however they also believe in the idea of intelligent design, that god set everything in motion. That is FINE to believe. It hasn't been proven otherwise, so we can't simply state, "No. God had nothing to do with it."

If you think belieiving in god makes you feel better, grea.t If you think believing in god will make you, personally, a better person, great. Atheists could care less about that. It is when god is used AGAINST things that it becomes a problem for us. Like when bigots decide to quote mine the bible to say homoseuality is 'evil'. And by bigots, i mean bigots, not christians, not catholics, not religious people, just bigots.

At 1/23/11 01:03 PM, RobJohnson wrote:
That's not what was stated in your original post, hence the criticism.

No, I just didn't explain it well enough for you. You misunderstod me, that doesn't mean I didn't say what you say I didn't say.

I am open to the belief of a supreme being, and I see no evidence.... so I would be having, according to the above quote, a LACK of belief in god.... which is not true.

All atheists are open to the idea of god if there is evidence, the fact that you consider yourself not an atheist because you consider yourself more reasonable on the subject of god's existence is the problem with people saying, "I'm not an atheist, I'm agnostic."

but as you just stated you must be one or the other...
(and then one or the other in the next category)

Yes, because you are.

I'm on the fence.

You don't know. Atheistic agnosticism.

Black and white.... and I'm gray.

Again, you equate agnosticism to be in the same school of thought as theism and atheism. It is not.

I'm sure there are many others who are also undecided.

And those people would also be atheistic agnostics.

To try and label to something that varies as much as religious belief is foolish.

Atheism isn't religious belief. It's nonreligious. Agnosticism isn't religious belief either, it's a belief about what can or cannot be known about god.

It is just not that simple as falling into one of two (or one of four for that matter) categories.

Yes. It is.

That is all that I'm trying to point out.

And you're wrong.

At 1/23/11 12:17 PM, klik wrote: is she a lesbian?

You sir, win one internet.

At 1/23/11 12:25 PM, RobJohnson wrote:

At 1/23/11 04:22 AM, BigLundi wrote: If your answer is "I don't know" that constitutes a lack of belief in god. If your answer is "I'm open to it, but I see no evidence" that is a LACK of believe in god, if your answer is, "Yeah, but I'd like proof as to what god it is" THAT would be theistic agnosticism.

Is this getting clearer?

got it.

*facepalms*

Since the drawing is incorrect, you obviously need it explained better.

Atheism - lack of belief in deities
theism - belief in deities

There is no in between here. Allow me to explain wit hmore definitions.

Agnosticism, the belief that the existence of god is unknowable. This does not constitute a belief that god does exist, nor that god doesn't exist.

The reason your drawing is inaccurate is because it refers to atheism and theism as shapes, and agnosticism as yet another shape, when it is not in the category of shapes, in this instance.

A person can be either an atheistic agnostic, or even a theistic agnostic. Yes, that is correct. You can believe in a god, while at the same time believe that knowledge OF that god is unknowable. You can also believe in no god, while simultaneously belieiving that knowledge of god is unknowable.

However, there is nothing in between there.

I am open to anything that is not autotuned, or has a twangy feel to it(I.E. old country, or deep south biblical)

At 1/23/11 11:30 AM, Tateos wrote:

At 1/23/11 05:54 AM, Space-Whale wrote: This is the end of all atheist/religion threads.

No it isn't. Eventually this thread will be forgotten.

Unfortunately.

However throughout this thread's life I would like anyone who views it to be a little more enlightened. For every person who reads and understands this thread, that's another person that won't go around spouting anti-atheistic nonsense.

At 1/23/11 11:23 AM, yonokowhat wrote: I belief there is something that created everything and holds some sort of power and balance in the world but it could be a god or something else

what does that make me?

You believe in a higher power. You are a theistic agnostic.

At 1/23/11 07:05 AM, bronchiosaurus wrote: Basically, tl;dr: Theistic and Atheistic agnostism cannot exist because it becomes a paradox, since an agnostic is a person who admits they do not know if there is a creator. An atheist and a theist claim to know if there is a god or not.

From what I read, you completely disregarded what I said atheism is. The facts are that atheism is the lack of belief in deities. Agnostics have a lack of belief in deities. I don't care what your EXTENT of lack of belief is, it's atheism nonetheless. There are several different levels of atheism. There's the Dawkins/Hitchens atheism where "If you believe in god you're a fool." and then there's agnostic atheism that goes, "You know I just don't see the evidence." The fact is agnosticism is EITHER theism or atheism. It is not one or the other, it cannot be referred to as neither. If you say "I dont know." then you don't know. You're one of the people that misunderstands what atheism is. It's not the active disbelief in god, it is a lack of belief in deities. It is, nonbelief. It is no belief. But to infer that no atheists would be open to the idea of god is preposterous. If you offer evidence that is inarguable, then atheists would have no choice but to accept that god exists, and then by definition, no longer be atheists.

tl;dr ends here.

To be an agnostic seems to be the most rational of this. How could, in the case of a theist, a simple human comprehend things so divine, and think that they would care to associate with us, as if we could even understand them? How could they believe in a book written by man, and that a God, a perfect being, would allow any kind of evil into this world? In the case of the atheist, how can they single-handedly claim that there is no such thing as a greater force in a universe, ever so vast and expanding, that we have yet to understand as humans?

Yet again you show that you don't understand what atheism is. There ARE Atheists that will actively attempt to refute god's existence, but that isn't atheism. Look at what I said atheism is. The LACK of belief in god. If you lack belief, you are an atheist. Pure and simple. We are not claiming to KNOW god doesn't exist, we're saying there's no reason TO believe he exists. There's no evidence, no proof, just stories and fairy tales. Thats not good enough for me, and it's not good enough for the rest of the peole who remain atheists.

As if their mind alone could find all the secrests of the universe, without ever exploring it, and with a simple thought a God would cease existence simply because a a single feeble, pretentious mortal mind does not believe in them? Neither of them could know.

We do not claim to KNOW god's nnexistence, pure and simple. We simply do not believe. This is a thought that leads to the misunderstanding of "Atheists hate god." in that you're saying that we're saying "He doesn't exist because I say so." No. Not a single atheist has ever said, "God doesn't exist because I say so and that's that."

The fact is. Agnosticism is EITHER theistic or atheistic. It is not neither, it is not both, it is one or the other. Agnostics are not one single belief, it's simply the requiring of proof.

I take this defense of agnostics, in so far as you don't like them being equated to atheists, to mean you consider yourself an agnostic. I ask you a simple question, DO you believe in god? I can determine your type of agnosticism from your answer.

At 1/23/11 04:34 AM, DarkMatter wrote: so if someone who doesnt believe in god is an athiest then whos a person who doesn't give a shit?

Uou either believe or you don't. Not giving a shit is irrelevant. For those who do not give a sit however, it would be easier to simply be an atheist, and move right the hell along.

At 1/23/11 04:31 AM, rubber-dum-dum wrote:

At 1/23/11 04:30 AM, BigLundi wrote:

At 1/23/11 04:27 AM, The-universe wrote: You've stumbled on the ShockofGod youtube channel haven't you?

No sir. I stumbled upon Youtube.

Look up thunderfoot, he is probably the most intelligent man on a mission to route out religion on YouTube.

I have watched Why People Laugh at Creationists up to video 40, I have watched Debating a Creationist videos 1-3(which is all of them) I have also seen his drama with VenomFangx that led in the boy's public youtube apology about misuing a copywrite act. I have also seen dprjones' very intelligent videos. However, there are other atheists on youtube I hate with a passion. *cough*TheAmazingAtheist*Cough*

At 1/23/11 04:27 AM, The-universe wrote: You've stumbled on the ShockofGod youtube channel haven't you?

No sir. I stumbled upon Youtube.

I would like to take the time to explain something that has come under scrutiny as of late. Not on this forum, but on others., and youtube, even the media.

What I'm talking about is the complete misunderstanding of what atheism is. Atheism is one thing, very simple, very concise.

The Lack of belief in god.

That is it. There are no beliefs that coincide with that. There is no additional things to add onto it, there is no 'well if you don't believe in god then you MUST believe/not believe in *insert ignorant assumption here*'.

Some of you might be asking yourselves, "This doesn't apply to me at all. I'm neither atheist nor theist. I'm agnostic."

You are wrong. Agnosticism is incorrectly referred to as NEITHER atheism or theism. it is in fact EITHER atheism or theism. Ask yourself one question, "Do I believe in god?" If your answer is "I don't know" that constitutes a lack of belief in god. If your answer is "I'm open to it, but I see no evidence" that is a LACK of believe in god, if your answer is, "Yeah, but I'd like proof as to what god it is" THAT would be theistic agnosticism.

Is this getting clearer? Let me add a few more things onto there

Things commonly mistaken about atheism. Bare in mind, there are far more than just these top 5 I will list, but these are the ones I see the most often, and the ones that annoy me the most.
1. all atheists are evolutionists
No, evolution and atheism do not equate eachother. Atheists CAN BE evolutionists, but not all atheists are. In fact, it doesn't even work the other way, there are archbishops that believe in evolution, thoguh they also believe god played a part in its original conception(I.E. Intelligent design theory)
2. Atheism is a religion
No. Atheism is a religion in the same idea that not collecting stamps is a hobby, or that not smoking is a habit.
3. Atheists must prove atheism is correct
No. Atheism is the default belief of nonbelief. Atheists are actually the ONLY ones that DO NOT have to prove what they...don't believe.
4. Atheists hate god.
No. We don't believe in god. We cannot hate something we don't believe exist.
5. Atheists have no morality.
No. We have subjective morality. And as much as religion would like to say otherwise, nobody, not even 'god' has carte blanche to claim morality as something they invented. To say we have no god to fear, so we have no reason to go ape shit and rape babies is absurdity in the highest degree.

If anyone would like to dispute this, or would like to add more things you've seen that should be addressed, please do so.

At 12/26/10 02:08 AM, PsychoticPsycho wrote: You should never hate your family. You hate yourself and are insecure in that case.

And where did you get your degree good sir?

Am I the only one who absolutely abhors spending time wit hhis family?

Let me see if my experience is just...I don't know...unique.

It begins with me entering my mom's house, who runs her hand through my hair and smells my head, then asks me if I bathed in the morning. My sister is playing with her baby girl and looks at me like I'm going to molest her.(not a joke, I love my neice but my sister truly doesn't want me anywhere near her). My brother calls to let us know he's not coming, whcih we all knew ahead of time. I join my stepfather in the living room, only to be asked if I'm always this lazy and presumptuous wherever I go. I then ponder wtf he's talking about for a second before mom my dad texts me asking me if I'm going to bother visiting him and his 3rd girlfriend and her 6 kids, or if they shouldn't bother cooking dinner for me as well. I ask my mother if I'll have time, and she asks me if I'm ok with abandoning her side of the family to go hang out with my father's latest whore. I shrug and decide to tell dad I won't make it. He tells me he's not surprised. After a dinner filled with questions as to when I'm going to get a real job and if I'm just there to get a meal for once. I finish the day saying, "This was great, but I've got to go." My sister asks me if I'm leaving because I hate my family, and I assure her I just need to head back to my apartment and work on my material.

But yeah. That's about an average holiday for me.

Anyone else hate hanging with their families?

Ahem. Just recently I asked my dad about his stance on gay marriage.

"Let me explain something to you. I have no problem with homosexuals, and if they want to marry under whatever religion will let them, fine. I AM however against them recieving the same benefits as a married couple."

Let me just say this. After seeing this, I had a serious consideration of finding out where this guy lived, going, and pulling a Dexter Morgan on him, in the form of sedating the shit out of him, burying him alive six feet under with NO fucking cell phone, and leaving him there.

That being said, I hope nobody goes vigilante and kills him, it would be so much sweeter to see him go to prison...then if he gets out before someone ELSE kills him, which is unlikely as soon as the inmates find out what he did, someone can go ahead and take his head off :D.

Here Are A Few More.

So I just finished crying after seeing that video of the fucknut who killed two kittens in a plastic bag.

Oh yes. I cried. And I'm not ashamed of it. Then I hugged my own cat like she would die if I didn't.

I then looked up some stuff on Youtube to make me feel better, and well...here are a Few Links.

At 12/25/10 09:50 AM, DigitalRelapse wrote: As far as I know, Angelina Jolie isn't a dude..

As far as YOU know.

That's the wrong thread mood for the thing you mean.

Here, this one matches much better :D.

As to the cat killing, yeah fuck that kid.

Everybody too lazy to find some videos of their actor's stuff? :P

At 12/24/10 01:52 AM, Sanch wrote: wow this thread is entirely revolved around american culture lol

To be honest, American movies and cinemaare the most prominant. We DO have the most celebrities, though I won't begrudge other countries their star status, Great Britain would be second on the list of hollywood's hottest. But still, after that, there aren't that many internationally reknowned actors.

If you KNOW of any who deserve to be internationally reknowned but aren't, that's what this thread is for :P.

At 12/23/10 11:50 PM, BareNakedMike wrote: you ain't got shit on goldencat nigguh

I can't believe people still reference him. You know SlipperyMooseCakes married me to him :D

Sure we all know Johnny Depp, Wesley Snipes, Angelina Jolie, and George Clooney.

But what about the unsung heroes of modern cinema? There are a large number of actors that the general public has probably never even heard of, or at least never care to remember the REAL names of, instead choosing to identify them by the only character they've ever seen the actors play.

I have a few that I like, and admire, and I know my fellow Newgrounders are very appreciative of good movies and shows.

What I'd like is for you to post the name of an actor you feel doesn't get enough credit, then find a scene of them doing their thing, and post it up.

Mine, would be the immortal Johnny C McGinley.

Here he is, as the psychotic Edgler Foreman Vess in the movie Intensity, explaining the greatness of...hunting. Fast forward about 3 and a half minutes.

Possibly one of the most brilliant performances ever.

At 11/16/10 02:58 PM, Odio wrote: That was pretty terrible.

Half of that shit didn't even go with the song's beat.

Ummm, have you HEARD parodies before? You usually have to pronounce the words a little bit different to fit the beat. I just sang it to myself, and it fits, all of it.

So. After seeing a topic marked "Zombies", it got me reminiscing about Left For Dead, which led me to this image here. I will post it as an attatchment to those who cannot go to this website for whatever reason.

Anyhow, as you can see, it's the Left For Dead verison of the bohemian Rhapsody cover....so...on the fly, I made a song with my friend online to fit it.

So, what do YOU guys think?

Is this my unlife?
Can this be fantasy?
Hunt those still alive,
Who want escape from this city!

Eating their eyes,
Devouring thighs,
So sweet!
I'm just a dead boy,
I need no sympathy
Because now
Here they come
Here we go
Death from high
Bring them low.
Any way those guys go
Doesn't really matter
To me!
(I'll eat...)

Mama,
Just ate a man.
Put my mouth around his head.
Clenched my jaws, now he's dead.
Mama,
Life had a good run.
Now I'm here to take it
All away.
Mama, ooooooh
Everybody's gonna die!
But they'll be back again this time tomorrow!
Now run off!
Now run off!
I could use a good chase...

It's too late,
Your time has come.
Run my claws along your spine.
Soon enough, you'll be all mine.
Come on, everybody.
It's time to go.
Gotta catch up to those guys,
And eat their brains!
Mama, ooooh! (any way those guys go...)
Soon you're gonna die!
And all of us will feast on your remains!

I see a survivor, running over there.
Tank and Witch! Tank and Witch! Go and feast upon his brains!
Molotovs and uzis, have no hope of stopping
Me!
Eat their brains now! Eat their brains now. Eat their brains now? Eat their brains now.
Eat their brains now yes right now
Eat their brains now!
now now now.
Easy now, found a witch, think she's gonna cry
Oh my god NO! You cannot let her cry!
(Let her cry!)
Oh my god NO! You cannot let her cry!
(Let her cry!)
Oh my god! You cannot let her cry!
(Let her cry!)
Cannot let her cry!
(Let her cry!)
Cannot let her cry!
(Let her cry!)
No, no, no, no, no no no!
Dude they're comin, just start shootin.
I don't care if this chick cries!
Ah, crap, a tank! Now he's gonna flatten meeeeee.
Smash meeeee.
Smash meeee!

So you think you can flee me and shoot at my eye?
So you think you can run, you think you can hide?
Oh, humans!
Can't escape from me humans!
Just gotta lift this,
Just gotta lift this truck right here.

Zombies are forever,
Anyone can see...
Life no longer matters,
Life no longer matters,
To me...

(Anywhere survivors go...)
*chomp sound*

So, It's been awhile, and I'd like to address a concern. I don't believe the rally will be re-aired on Comedy Central. Not because it was bad or anything, but because it was a 3 hour long rally...which is an hour longer than any cable TV movie. It would mess up schedules and the like, and as such, anyone wanting to watch it might have to wait until some sort of DVD or some sort comes out, which also might not happen, as commercializing the Rally like that might actually, ironically, go against the spirit of the rally.

Also, Jon Stewart does indeed take himself serious at times. There is not one human being in the entirety of the world that is a comedian 100% of the time when expressing themselves.

Need I remind anyone about the "Crossfire" incident? Or his more recent interview with John Kramer(still a few years old, but meh)? Jon is a comedian, yes, but that doesn't mean you are never to take him seriously.

At 11/1/10 01:48 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote:

At 11/1/10 12:31 AM, aviewaskewed wrote: And suddenly I think we now have a more clear picture as to why FOX News might have a mind to downplay this event...

they'll only be doing what every other station did to the tea party protests...

And the exact opposite of what they themselves did, "The amount of people here united on the issues is staggering, this is truly a beautiful sight, these people must number in the thousands." Meanwhile most tea party protests aren't near the number estimated by Fox News.