Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

i missed a few words. i went to say:

[accurately] refers to the non-belief of atheists in the presence/existence of a "god."

At 1/30/09 09:22 AM, bcdemon wrote:

At 1/30/09 08:39 AM, xXShortEmoKidXx wrote: i know it sounds harsh, but its' correct, though. you are technically a non-believer if you do not believe.

I'm a believer, just not of religion.

Come on, that is just rhetoric. It's not as if he said atheists and agnostics didn't believe in ANYTHING, but he preceeded the statement with three well known faiths. It is only logical to assume that "non-believers" refers [accurately] to the non-belief of atheists. Which was his purpose. It was simply a statement to try to include more people. I don't see ANY reason to be offended.

Anyone else notice what seemed a clear jab at Russian in his speech? The whole, 'to those who attempt to keep power thorugh corruption and silencing' bit.

Overall, pretty good speech. A lot of poetics, but that just made it sound good.

The poet was talented but her reading was a bit whack.

If this supposed split did happen eventually, i can definately see the Northeast [which will surely remain the US] taking back the other splinter groups by force. They have a population and industry advantage, and it is likely that many military men/women would stick by their mother country, not the split off.

It would be the Civil War all over again.

At 11/19/08 08:23 PM, Phratt wrote:

At 11/19/08 08:19 PM, Pandaman652 wrote:

Thus, America started looking towards communism.

how does this have anything to do with communism? That is a completely different topic that has nothing to do with these "free speech zones."

I like interracial relationships. Its why i exists.

Banning them would be especially bad for me. Since ALL my relationships are technically interracial.

Anyone else notice that Obama won by such alarge margin that he didn't even need California?

At 11/4/08 09:42 PM, marchohare wrote:

At 11/4/08 09:40 PM, DrAfrothunder wrote: I'm waiting for the Florida return. If it goes obama, i'm going to consider that victory.

Never trust the Florida return until all votes are counted.

Better yet, until three days after all votes are counted. Florida is funny that way.

bleh, sadly true. x_x

I'm waiting for the Florida return. If it goes obama, i'm going to consider that victory.

It really saddens me to see how much religion has ostracized people as a whole. It doesn't have to be that way...

:At 10/27/08 04:38 PM, Drakim wrote:

This is actually a great argument. Perhaps the only argument that I'll ever considure to be valid for religion.

However, I have one big issue. My personal conviction is that all religions are false. This means that this ideal system who makes people grow, which you are talking about, is basically a big system based on a falsehood. I have a fundamental problem with this.

I mean, imagine that we start exploring space, and we stumble upon a planet with intelligent life. But it so happens that the life on that planet all believes that the stars in the sky are their ancestors watching over them. We know this not to be the case, that it's in fact burning suns, like our own, at a very far distance. But what if this ancestor star belief made this alien race be effective? It made aliens become better, uhm, "people".

That makes it into a positive belief. But still, wouldn't it bother you that this great rich culture is based on a lie at it's core?

Thats a good question and a good arguement. Firstly, it would make no sense to ruin it for them, as they wil find out on their own given enough time. But your arguement also used a far more provable situation. We can PROVE stars are burning suns. If you could PROVE to me their is no God, god being an omniscient supernatural being, than as a person of intellect i would be forced to concede defeat. If you could PROVE the matter from the big bang was just there, existing, and wasn't created by some sort of god, than i would admit that you are right. Yes, religion is too vague to answer these questions, or at least at the moment. But it is that vague-ness that protects their possibility. A "god" of some sort cannot be disproven at this time. If it ever is, i'll be first in line to resign from religion.

Uhm, do I have to point out that most popular religions text includes some commandments to kill gay people? If somebody reads that, and then kills gay people, is he really misusing religion, or simply following it?

yes, and that same religion has ten commandments including THOU SHALT NOT KILL. thats one of the top ten. The same religion always has a man and a commandment which say one should LOVE THY NEIGHBOR. The same guy always commands not to judge men for if you do you will be judged in heaven.

As i said, religion and religious texts are not perfect. There needs to be that grain of salt, and one needs to align the religion with what makes sense. Killling homosexuals because they supposedly aren't going to heaven isn't using the text as it should be used.

Many people say that, but I've really yet to ever hear about a case where an atheist shoved atheism in somebodies face. I mean, posting arguments for atheism in a debate forum can hardly count. While it comes to religions people, there are tons of out-of-debating-situations where they try to convert, such as knocking on people's door trying to share the gospel. In my experience, atheists tends to stick to a situation where debating atheism and belief in God is valid (such as on a forum).

I've often heard stories about how strangers has started talking to children while their parents weren't looking, telling them about how they must have Jesus or go to hell. Have you ever heard an horror story about any atheist like this? I, at least, never have.

Then you're lucky. I've had my beliefs mocked, people tell me i'm crazy, or stupid, or unintelligent for believing in religion. I will admit that there is a more distinct problem the other way around. But don't think it doesn't happen. I once knew a girl who had conservative christian views and was constantly made fun in school because they didn't match what most people thought. They were the typical hellfire and brimstone, but she only talked about it when people asked.

But, then you don't believe that everybody is going to hell...because you wouldn't like that?

It's just the idea of a "loving" god doesn't match up with one that is sending every good person in the world who doesn't believe a particular set of words to hell. There can be truth in a lot of religions. Many paths, one destination kinda thing.

I personally like religion a lot. I think it is a very beautiful human institution, creation, false belief, whatever one wants to call it. Religion has the capacity to bring out the best in people, and make them be better people. Is that a great thing, that people NEED the religion? Maybe not. But i don't see why believing in something beyond life is anything to be admonished. Even if we who are religious are wrong, at the end of our lives who will be all the wiser for it? It takes not stupidity to believe in religion, but great faith, which is really what religion is all about.

But that being said, interpretations, and yes, even some religions themselves can be harmful. Some religions preach hate, and some theists interpret the texts in a hateful way. This is something that will never be avoided, whether the texts are religious or not. There will always be extremists. Belief without true pondering and a certain degree of doubt is not belief or faith at all. Militants who kill in the name of God are wrong not because they are religious, but because they haven't interpreted the religion for themselves.

I see nothing wrong with thoughful, interpersonal religion. No one likes having "God" shoved in their faces. Doing so is rude and unthoughtful. But then again, people who shove atheism in people's face are just as bad. If one doesn't want to be told you're going to hell, perhaps you shouldn't be so quick to tell people they aren't going to heaven. That's a point I think is often forgotten.

So yeah, i'm religious. Do i understand it all? No, not really. Do i think you are all going to hell? Well, sounds like a hateful God if you all are, and i don't want to believe in such a spiteful diety. I'm still a young guy, i have a lot to learn about different religions, but i still maintain that religion can be beautiful. Its just not an art...that everyone appreciates.

oops. my words got put in the middle by accident. Sorry.

At 10/22/08 09:32 AM, Saruman200 wrote:

At 10/21/08 07:28 PM, zoolrule wrote:
Kill all Jews
-- Average Arab in 1870's-1940's's.

Kill all Israelis
--Average Arab in 1948's-now.

I will kill every single Israeli and drive them of with my holy spirit and jihad, and if not me, my children will. ALLAH ACHBAR.
-- Average Palestinian

I completely agree. The only glaring racism i've seen in this topic has come from you zoorule. You're quick to call anyone who doesn't support Israel an anti-semite and yet continue to ramble on about how bad islam and arabs are. THAT is racism.

BOOM.
-- His children.

Wait a minute here, explain to me how "Israeli Aparthide" is racist, but this isn't...

At 10/20/08 09:19 PM, thedo12 wrote:

At 10/19/08 03:31 AM, Helicopterz wrote: Do you guys think they'd elect a Muslim or an Atheist first?

atheists are by far the most distrusted minority in america,

theres your awnser

are you kidding? The general public is SO much more suspicious of muslims.

Yes, but your replys tell us one important thing:

Communism isn't the problem.

Greedy people are. It validates my stance as a cynic.

I win. I'm a religious person and my score is zero. Zip. And while i feel that you list does have some validity, there really is no need for such an attack on people who haven't thought religion out for themselves. Like the grammar comment; it was just a little unnecessary.

That was a waste of 47 minutes and 55 seconds of my life. I'm not even sure what i can say. Just...no...

At 8/26/08 10:02 PM, BrianEtrius wrote: I'm a leaning-toward-the-right Democrat. I do believe some of the Republican values are correct, such as social Darwinism.

Social Darwinism doesn't work. As we look back in history, social darwinism has only attirbuted to the increasing distance between the poor and the rich. The idea that the best would rise to the top might work---if we were all on equal footing to begin with. But there are people who grow up homeless. If they are homeless, it is very difficult to get a job. They probably won't have that great of an education. And that is not because of what THEY did. It was what they were born into.

And of course, the son/daughter of a millionare is going to have so much oppurtunity they won't know what to do with.

We need to help the poor and misfortunate people, not tell them to get a job, or that they simply are an inferior person.

At 8/26/08 01:17 PM, Diederick wrote: Socialist Party, but you don't have that in America because you think we're the same as communists. I'm not completely in agreement over everything they stand for, but it's the least worse political movement in the Netherlands.

If I lived in America I would vote for Obama. Progression must win.

Actually there is a Socialist Party of the USA. I plan on joining it once getting to voting age.

Yup, and hes also from Delaware. We're #1......in cancer rates...

:*crycry*

At 8/22/08 01:11 AM, freddorfman wrote: yes he invaded two of my homelands and killed jews no one likes killig jews so he is evil to me ad he was not a true commuist and he ivaded great soviet union

You do realize that's becuase he hated communism even more then the capitalists of the west, right? In Mein Kempf [which i have only read selected portions] he says that there are two twin evils in the world, Judaism and Communism. Of course he wasn't a "true" communist. he wasn't even communist!!!

At 8/21/08 10:07 PM, poxpower wrote:

At 8/21/08 08:57 PM, DrAfrothunder wrote:

And if we call him evil based on "universal truths", well, universal truths don't really exist.

One thing that is ALWAYS bad is to set laws as "untouchable, definite, absolute" etc.

What happens when two tribes/countries with "untouchable, definite, asbolute" set of laws meet? Assured conflict.

No rule is ever above discussion. Never. NOT EVEN THIS ONE.

If I may ask, was this written in agreement or in arguement? It sounds to me as though we are saying the same thing. Though your explanation is certainly more succinct.

Noooooooo. It happened YEARS ago, it couldn't have been planned to create a pretext, that's far too long ago for a brilliant strategist like Putin to have planned.

Lets be realistic. A lot of those people got those passports almost 20 years ago after the break up of the Soviet Union. Sure, Russia is certainly taking advantage of that citizenship, but I highly doubt that the Russian goverment of the early nineties systematically handed out passports to citizens of a tiny province in tiny georgia to provoke NATO & the West 15-odd years down the road.

PoxPower put it perfectly.

Under those circumstances, no, Hitler is not evil. Evil and Good are defined only as viewpoints and opinions. One mans hero is another's villian. One society's terrorist is another's Freedom Fighter.

And if we call him evil based on "universal truths", well, universal truths don't really exist. If they did, hitler wouldn't be alone in his villiany. It seems as though for most people, universal truths are merely convenient reasons to justify/demonize given actions at convenient times.

Thats my two cents.

^^^

Well, actually, we don't know if hitler will go to heaven. It is easy to say no becuase of his heinous acts, but if he truly believed he was right, then who are we to deign him evil. Evil and good are in the eyes of the beholder.

I AM NOT EXCUSING THE MASS GENOCIDE OF VARIOUS ETHNIC/POLITICAL GROUPS.

really, it simply depends on how you look at it. besides, i don't happen to know hitlers religious affiliations of the top of my head.

Has anyone else noticed the constant US use of the phrase "The democratically elected government of Georgia." Seems to me that the gov't is trying to warmonger and scare people into the old mean communist russian thing again.

I mean, come on. Russia's government is democratic too. Whatever your feelings about their last election, they ARE still democratic. This is just an example of selective phrasing to build opposition to russia. [among the general population]

^^^^It was.

And i must say, the Russians looked pissed that they were losing. They were some of the favorites.

At 8/11/08 12:06 AM, Proteas wrote: Okay, I'll play this game.

The concept of Communism has been in existence for well over a century now. WHY has it not caught on like wildfire as democracy has? Could it be that a truly equal society cannot exist without a centralized authority to ensure said equality and eventually leading into a socialist state, thus defeating the concept of communism entirely?

It DID catch on like wildfire. Half the world was embroiled in a fight for communism for decades during the Cold War. Sadly, the communism they faught for was indeed corrupt, and people recognized that fact with time, leading to the nearly global distaste of communism.

And if you speak of America in particular, the reason communism never "caught fire" is because in the early 1900's, during the rise of communism with the Bolshevik revolution, most amreicans couldn't handle the fear and unknown and opted to persecute supposed communists. The Red Scare.

Ironic really, since america hated the czars, and practically cheered at their downfall, only to turn around and change its mind.

Communism is awesome. Anyone who says otherwise needs to rexamine their views on the world.

That being said, communism is [sadly] improbable, perhaps even impossible, as evident in the corrupt totalitarian states that have arisen in the name of communism.