Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

I've never met a theist who, when asked why do you believe God exists, replied "Because my parents told me so".

How is believing in something that to a select individual makes sense and fills that individual with hope insanity? Just because you don't believe in God, don't call others who do insane -- they have their own reasons for believing.

At 5/26/11 09:34 PM, Yrtnej wrote: they can start to like you for who you are, not whether you're really attractive or have a lot of money.

lol

At least you had the balls to ask an attractive girl out, something half of newgrounds can't do.

At 5/26/11 02:21 PM, PhoenixGodwin wrote:

At 5/26/11 12:42 PM, Dubbi wrote:

A lot of stupid crap.

I'm ignoring most of the things you said because it was mostly redundant.

I didn't perceive what I said to be redundant. I objected to things you said that I believed were wrong, expressed doubts on your theory, lamented your continual tendency to avoid any form of evidence to substantiate your claims, and shared some of my own views concerning the universe and our [sorry] attempts to understand it.
You keep trying to pick a fight by pulling at things that are arbitrary to argue against.

I'm objecting to things you said that are wrong. All of this arbitrary, though, but the fact that you can call me out on largely irrelevant things (with little validity to your denunciations), yet become horribly indignant and exalted when I do the same to you strikes me as rather foolish and immature.

You have implied things (like that people can'tview God and the Universe as identical)

I never implied this; with all your insults towards my reading comprehension, I find this to bedelightfully ironic. All I stated was, the majority of people don't view God in a pantheistic manner -- which is what you stated.

that epitomize ignorance, close-mindedness, bigotry,

I think in your little mind, you've denounced me as bigoted idiot, allowing you to demean me and ignore my arguments. However, you've failed to prove how any of these nouns characterize me.

and even insipidity.

Not insipidity!!!

Anything you've addressed here was either addressed in the article or in responses that came afterword.

Is it so terribly difficult to address them a second time or provide a direct link to where they were addressed?

You say I'm being unnecessarily confusing, but brighter and more open-minded individuals than yourself have understood what I'm saying easily. You keep trying to pick a fight- and as with before, I just won't give it to you anymore.

I never claimed I couldn't understand what you were saying, though. I was saying that you were being confusing for no other purpose other than maybe to obscure. Do you really believe insulting me justifies you or your arguments in anyway? It's almost as if someone objects they are less intelligent so a rebuttal to their objections is unnecessary.

If you want to know the reasoning behind my Fractal Universe theory I will give it to you gladly without you constantly and irrationally attacking me and telling me I'm wrong:

Fractal Universe Theory(Currently in development)

The fact that fractals appear in nature doesn't prove that the entire universe is a complicated fractal pattern. You fail to prove in anyway how the universe is a highly complicated pattern. Your idea kind of makes sense if you think about in a certain way, but, as I've stated before, concrete evidence is necessary. Still I commend you for your originally if not for your intelligence.

I said that what most people think of and attribute to the soul is actually just our individuality- our uniqueness. Please read more carefully.

Sounds more like poetry than anything else. Also, I never misunderstood this; I just assumed the terms were mutually inclusive in this argument.

That's because, due to a very complicated serious of reactions that is a tree's life, things occur differently every time. But since the tree didn't have any control over the process, the tree didn't have free will.

Reactions come from cause and effect, but again a controlled identical environment would still grow two individual tress that are distinguishable from each other. Barely anything in nature is absolutely identical upon close enough inspection. As for now we think electrons are, but in the future we may get a closer look and find out that in actuality they aren't either.

The question is, if that individual tree experienced the exact same conditions a second time, would it turn out identical. Logically, I believe it would -- of course, this is impossible to prove. Which brings me to ask how exactly your fractal argument proves free will. If everything is just a complicated sequence, how do we have control. and if we do have control, isn't it just really an illusion, as our actions are based on actions that came before them? From where does the free will arise?

At 5/26/11 12:07 PM, PhoenixGodwin wrote:

As Michaeles stated, this implies free will, whcih probably doesn't exist, still not entirely sure, though. I think our lives are much more predetermined by environmental fators and change than by our "soul". You bring up this idea about our individuality being our soul, but I just think it's mor epoetry, more elquently eorded nice thoughts. Where is your fucking evidence of this soul, moron?

I don't believe in the soul. Instead I believe that we are all just individuals, and that a soul is superfluous for the things we commonly attribute to it. You are terrible at reading.

No, you are. I thought it was pretty clear that in this discussion the soul is another word for your concept of individuality.

The thought that free-will is just an illusion given by awareness (or sentience) that we perceive as we move through time naturally responding to inherent natural circumstances around us has been presented to me. It occurs to me that in a way, my "Fractal Universe" idea would disprove that notion. Because being sentient gives us the ability to chose which 'path' we take.

Not if all our choices are determined by various, highly complicated factors. Then no, we can't really choose what path we take; we can think we can, though.

What we are doing as sentient beings is choosing the development of the universe on a very local scale. To get an idea of the concept, consider how even though a tree isn't conscious, it still develops in a unique way every time, even in a controlled environment with all applicable variables being made identical. Give that process conscious wants and needs and that's our concept of free-will.

That's because, due to a very complicated serious of reactions that is a tree's life, things occur differently every time. But since the tree didn't have any control over the process, the tree didn't have free will.

At 5/26/11 12:41 PM, Nein wrote: Dubbi, let me be clear here.

I don't disagree with anything you said. What I'm trying to say is, since everything is subjective, to become enlightened, as you put it, doesn't actually give you any greater understanding of or connection to the universe. I realize now that you may not be claiming it does, that there are other reasons to purse enlightenment.

At 5/26/11 12:07 PM, PhoenixGodwin wrote: You know Dubbi, I keep thinking that maybe you'll stop being a complete moron, but every time we talk you take more and more away from my faith in that.

Could say the same about you, but I never shared such optimism.

At 5/26/11 10:22 AM, Dubbi wrote:

I don't believe in apples as a fruit.
I believe in them as a component of the universe.
No one can really deny that, but your using unnecessary word games in a way that obscures your meaning.

No it doesn't. You're just so determined to argue with me that you're searching for some sort of hidden meaning that you can argue against.

No, I'm saying your being unnecessarily confusing.

Most people believe God is a suprme, benevolent being who watches over us; as much as you may want to think so, they don't view God as existence as a whole, or Existence lol.

Except for Pantheists. So you're just ignorant. Not to mention that the concept is present in many Monotheistic beliefs, IE "God is everywhere and present in everything".

Do you understand the meaning of the word "most", moron? Most people believe in God in the sense that I described, I never said all. The reason I bring this up is because you said that most believe in God in way similar your beliefs, which is not the case. The Judeo-Islamic-Christian views on God are different than your views on God, you can try to argue here, but it is a fact. These religions view God as one benevolent being who watches over us. You can argue that there are some similarities between their views and pantheism, but your arguments will rely manly on semantics and won't hold much validity... Try hard enough, you can find similarities between anything.

Sentient thought in living organisms may be a very early part of the process by which the Universe is slowly becoming self-aware. Or rather, the development of organisms with sentient thought like ours may be the beginning of a process in which the Universe develops 'nodes' of perception within itself.

Interesting thought. Now present some actual evidence. So the universe is planning for itself to become self aware? How the hell does it do that? Is there some central order behind the universe -- a creator?!! This is starting to sound like intelligent design, just more obscure and confusing.

It's an idea, Dubbi. I never stated it as a fact- in fact, it's not even something I particularly believe in. It's just a new concept that I thought of. Your constant attempt to argue with me is becoming increasingly redundant and tired. You claim your vocabulary is particularly good (which I'm still yet to see any signs of), but your reading comprehension skills are terrible.

I never claimed you did; I'm saying you shouldn't express your theories, unsupported with evidence, and expect people not to disagree. It's annoying when you make all these claims, yet don't feel the need to offer evidence and become indignant when people object. Without evidence, all that you say are mere interesting, appealing thoughts.

The universe is absurd and chaotic. We are here only because of a complex set of reactions starting from the big bang until now. It is all random and meaningless; there is no central plan, the universe didn't plan us; we just emerged. If your going to state that there the universe has a plan of some sort to make itself aware, at least present some evidence for why you think this and how it does this. It's a cool thought, but cool isn't enough to convince me.

I'm not trying to convince you of anything, and "plan" would imply a conscious decision, which I don't believe the Universe is even capable of- I've specifically stated that. I'll say it again, you are being increasingly redundant. Things naturally evolve and develop, and sometimes we can see the signs as that is happening and predict what the outcome will be. It doesn't mean there's intelligent design, it just means that there is a level of predictability to some things.

People make arguments to convince others of the arguments' validity. I agree that there is no central order to the universe, saying the universe creates nodes of perception sounds like you are implying that there is.

To claim the Universe is Absurd is to ignore the natural order that is all around us every day: More ignorance. Trees have similar shapes, and people don't randomly start turning purple and floating up into the sky in order to explode into rainbows. The reason is because the functionality of existence operates on parameters (or patterns) that happen so regularly that up to a certain point we can predict them. For example, we know that planting a seed in the ground will make a plant grow and not make a giant unicorn spring from the ground pissing fairies. Yes, there is chaos. The chaos is organized by functioning patterns that we can recognize, and I personally believe that those patterns are all part of one larger pattern that we can't and probably won't recognize- it's just too big. That theory makes perfect sense in consideration of fractal science, which I've put s lot of effort into researching and I'm sure you hardly know anything about- because it basically proved the phrase: "Organized Chaos".

You are wrong in calling me ignorant; I'm sure Bacchan can explain why you are wrong better, though. I never claimed that there isn't any order to the universe or that things will start floating randomly. I'm stating that there is no natural order, things emerge. Parts of what you say I agree with, things go awry when you begin to make grandiloquent assumptions -- when you claim there is a grand pattern to the universe. Where is the evidence of this pattern? It sounds cool just doesn't cut it.

I agree completely with your point about the majority of humans being caught up in constant triviality, failing to achieve or learn anything. However, the amount of knowledge you gain in life is directly related to the amount of knowledge you wish to gain in life. Some people are perfectly happy not pursuing philosophy, and you can't say you are superior for personally disagreeing: the quality ofm life is subjective; in the end if we all die, having (or thinking you have) a better understanding of the universe won't help you.

I never said I was superior to anyone. I'm merely advocating to people that they try to increase the things they are aware of during their finite life span. Quit twisting around the things I say to fit into your personal and misguided perception of me.

Get over yourself; in that statement, I never claimed you claimed you were superior, nor did I attack you personally. I simply agreed with what you said, while mentioning that meaning in life is subjective, so that you can't assume anybody's choices in life are superior, as we all meet the same end. The best thing to do, is to do what gives you happiness, meaning and fulfillment.

Nein:

What I'm saying is, the ideas of Buddhism -- Nirvanna, nothingness, Samsara etc - are simply ideas. You can believe that it is best to rid yourself of everything and embrace the universe, but doing so doesn't make you anymore human or connected with the universe than you'd be otherwise. The universe is absurd, there is no meaning, understanding or enlightenment to be garnered.

Well, you can think your in tune with the universe, but you're belief that you're enlightened is really just a wish. In reality, despite your believed state of nirvana, your the same meaningless human you always were. Objectively speaking, your not anymore in tune with the universe than you were before, you just think -- wish -- you are.

Not saying there's no credence to Buddhism, I actually considered the religion for awhile, but it's important to know that the ideas of nirvana and other Buddhist concepts are simply ideas, not truths.

At 5/26/11 10:43 AM, Nein wrote: Oh, and enlightenment is when this idea becomes concrete in your head and you, for a brief moment, forget YOURSELF. As in, your actual self, because yourself does not exist, you're just another part... no, not a part... you are just the universe itself.

Sounds like more poetry to me...

There's nothing objective about any thought, no idea can put you in tune with the universe -- this concept is Utopian and unsubstantiated by logic, reason or any evidence.

At 5/18/11 06:43 PM, PhoenixGodwin wrote: I adhere to what is apparently referred to as Physiomonistic Pantheism.

I think that what most people think of as the "Soul" is in actuality just our Individuality. If you think about it, everything about you is simply a single sentient thought that has been growing and learning and bouncing around off of all the things you have perceived throughout your lifetime. It originates and lives within the brain, and it is responsible for people's will, drive, dedication, and pretty much any other thing that people would attribute to the soul. Individuality is as unique as DNA, and it builds and grows as it experiences and perceives different things throughout life. I think it's a very real possibility that it dies with the body it originated in- but who knows?

As Michaeles stated, this implies free will, whcih probably doesn't exist, still not entirely sure, though. I think our lives are much more predetermined by environmental fators and change than by our "soul". You bring up this idea about our individuality being our soul, but I just think it's mor epoetry, more elquently eorded nice thoughts. Where is your fucking evidence of this soul, moron? Show me the empirical evidence, show me where the soul is in the body, how it originates, it it genetic, do some people have more soul than other people, does the color of the soul change from person to person like eye color does?

What I'm trying to say is, you can make all the interesting, cool-sounding an optimistic claims you want, but devoid of any evidence -- which they are -- don't expect to be taken seriously. Instead of rashly posting this, why not go back and really scrutinize the theory, really search for the evidence, and when you're done, you can come back.

The Universe is incredibly complex, and so is Individuality. I'm not sure that anyone living is actually capable of saying for certain what happens to that Individuality after death. It might just be destroyed (as hard as that is for many to accept), or maybe something else happens that is scientifically feasible in a way that we do not yet understand. Most of the cultures that look inward in response to their existentialism tend to believe pretty strongly in reincarnation. These are the same cultures that hold a great deal of significance in "Enlightenment", so maybe there's something to it.

You claim Individuality is extremely complex, while failing to explain it or present evidence of its evidence. Is it too complex too explain or prove? So we should just take your word for it? Feels like I'm arguing with an idiotic theist.

At 5/18/11 06:43 PM, PhoenixGodwin wrote: I adhere to what is apparently referred to as Physiomonistic Pantheism.

*Drinks from tea cup* Okay, lets do this.

I do not believe in "God" as a sentient, omnipotent, or omniscient being- in fact I don't believe in 'God' as a 'being' at all. I believe that the Universe (Existence) is infinitely vast and intricate. Through studying the patterns in nature, I am fairly certain that Existence operates on what some call "organized chaos"; the universe is constantly changing and 'growing' in chaotic ways, but it follows patterns and systems that allow it to sustain itself.

At 5/18/11 06:43 PM, PhoenixGodwin wrote: I adhere to what is apparently referred to as Physiomonistic Pantheism.

*Drinks from tea cup* Okay, lets do this...

I do not believe in "God" as a sentient, omnipotent, or omniscient being- in fact I don't believe in 'God' as a 'being' at all. I believe that the Universe (Existence) is infinitely vast and intricate. Through studying the patterns in nature, I am fairly certain that Existence operates on what some call "organized chaos"; the universe is constantly changing and 'growing' in chaotic ways, but it follows patterns and systems that allow it to sustain itself.

I think it's clearer to say what you believe in, rather than what you don't believe in. You say you don't believe in God in the traditional sense, yet you never really elaborate on what type of God you believe in, instead you say you believe in the universe, which you imply is identical to God. Of course, no one -- well, not really, but nihilists aside -- can deny the existence of nature, and through your logic nature is (without explaining why, mind you) God, so you cannot deny God, as you've defined it. Whcih would, if this ended here, make for a pretty stupid argument -- i.e.:
I don't believe in apples as a fruit.
I believe in them as a component of the universe.

No one can really deny that, but your using unnecessary word games in a way that obscures your meaning.

I personally am constantly aware of everything being a part of overall Existence, especially myself as I am the thing that I know best. I am amazed by it and find myself in constant wonder, inquisition, and awe. I think that what most people think of as "God" is just Existence as a whole. In that respect, we are all part of that "God". It makes sense, really: you exist, so you are part of existence. My personal speculation?

Most people believe God is a suprme, benevolent being who watches over us; as much as you may want to think so, they don't view God as existence as a whole, or Existence lol.

Sentient thought in living organisms may be a very early part of the process by which the Universe is slowly becoming self-aware. Or rather, the development of organisms with sentient thought like ours may be the beginning of a process in which the Universe develops 'nodes' of perception within itself.

Interesting thought. Now present some actual evidence. So the universe is planning for itself to become self aware? How the hell does it do that? Is there some central order behind the universe -- a creator?!! This is starting to sound like intelligent design, just more obscure and confusing.

The universe is absurd and chaotic. We are here only because of a complex set of reactions starting from the big bang until now. It is all random and meaningless; there is no central plan, the universe didn't plan us; we just emerged. If your going to state that there the universe has a plan of some sort to make itself aware, at least present some evidence for why you think this and how it does this. It's a cool thought, but cool isn't enough to convince me.

Finally, to really round off my explanation of Awareness is Humans. First off, all humans do not share a unanimous level of Awareness. Awareness is the consideration of everything around you and your relation to it. To many people, their lives only relate to the small little bubble that their lives take place in. They get hung up on trivial or petty things that on the big picture really just don't matter. A huge and crippling example of this is prejudice. In the big picture the things that cause prejudice are petty and small, but to those who hold it it's based on important dogmas that are inherent to their lives and the things they have been told- it's incredibly self-centered and detrimental to the quality and fulfillment of life.

I agree completely with your point about the majority of humans being caught up in constant triviality, failing to achieve or learn anything. However, the amount of knowledge you gain in life is directly related to the amount of knowledge you wish to gain in life. Some people are perfectly happy not pursuing philosophy, and you can't say you are superior for personally disagreeing: the quality ofm life is subjective; in the end if we all die, having (or thinking you have) a better understanding of the universe won't help you.

As sentient beings, we have the ability to increase our level of awareness- that's what sentience is- and it is the key thing that separates us from the turtles and the dogs and such. We are all sentient thoughts that have formed in this vast 'mess' that we call Reality. I think it's important to compel one's self to grow and increase their awareness beyond that of which their environment naturally endows. The peak of this is called "Enlightenment", which I believe is a moment where your sentience (or 'individuality'- more on that in the next paragraph) completely disassociates from your own life (ego), and instead associates with everything else.

This enlightenment bullshit sounds more lie poetry than anything else, an inspirational thought well worded. How do we achieve enlightenment; how do you know when you are disassociated? Do you change color? Do you start levitating? What do you mean by "associates with everything else"?
Not necessarily understanding everything in or about Existence, but having a clear and concise feeling of being a part of everything as opposed to just being the person you are who has lived the life that you have.

Except it's all subjective and since your knowledge is limited to your own -- imperfect -- perceptions, you will never gain true knowledge, only what you think is knowledge, which maybe is what Baccan what trying to say -- still admittedly not really sure.

Yeah, this is unusual and pretty cruel, but then again, he killed two poisoners and a prison guard...

I'm willing to date girls my own age plus or minus two years.

your mom

True emotional relationship where a connection exists on a deeply personal and attraction comes from more than just sex and physical attractiveness are very rare.

HOW DO YOU KNOW THEY'RE NOT TRULY IN LOVE?!!!

Humans create morals in order to form a guide to live a better life and build a better society. Of course our morals are mere interpretations of the world, devoid of objective meaning or divinity, but they are derived through logic and reason. The reason we believe murder, robbery, rape etc are bad is that if we believed they weren't, there would be utter chaos.

At 5/15/11 05:34 AM, Ninjafap wrote:
You feel nothing about the "clock", it doesn't exist anymore.

However, holistically speaking, it is still a clock, and it still exists. We don't perceive things in a reductionist fashion; we can reduce things to their most simple parts, but that doesn't change the fact that the entity as a whole still exists. No matter how thoroughly I reduce and analyze a clock, when I see one, I will always see a clock -- not a bunch of atoms.

If she was hot, you're an idiot for not running out of your house in pursuit of her the moment you received the text.

At 5/13/11 10:34 PM, Sasoriuchiha72 wrote: She doesnt want to talk to anybody now, and now I feel bad.

I really want to do something, but it seems like leaving her alone for a while is doing something...

You can't force her to talk to you or force her to cheer up. She's obviously hurt and needs to deal with the situation herself first -- she'll come around, just give her time.

Well, you can try to just be supportive: give her a hug, tell her the guy was an idiot, try to make her laugh. But the thing with heartbreak is, the victim needs to overcome it his - or her - self. In time she'll cheer up, but breakups suck and for now her sadness is a coping mechanism, which she will get over.

Ha?

If you want a serious, emotional relationship, go for her. If you're still disillusioned with relationships, "hit it and quit it" or just don't pursue anything. But it's your choice, bro -- we can't make it for you.

"Specifically, the officials said they did not know if bin Laden himself had acquired or viewed the materials."

Not so fast guys, the porn may not have been his.

I utterly hate those people whom use such a pretentious and unnecessary word.

At 5/12/11 01:01 AM, PhoenixGodwin wrote:

At 5/12/11 12:50 AM, Dubbi wrote:

Well, I know that we killed Bin laden inasmuch as I know anything other common report is true -- eg: Floodwaters rise in the poverty-stricken Delta

You tard, quit doing this to yourself. You're making yourself look stupid in front of everyone.
There is a really important, damning detail to your example that is really obvious to everyone and you completely overlooked it: There's photographic evidence.

Good job completely missing the point, moron. That was literally just a random article I found; I could have chosen any article -- some consequently without photographic evidence, and for that matter photographic evidence can easily be forged. My point was, you can't know if anything the media tells you is true, objectively speaking, unless you see the evidence yourself m-- in that case, I meant visiting Mississippi. In the Bin Laden case, I meant seeing his body. Thus, we have to accept things that we think are most likely true. The government being honest, and not being part of a crazy conspiracy is most likely true, even if we can't know for sure.

I'm not trying to brew trouble, just making sure NGers understand that there are still many of us who think he's on dead, as this thread has a pretty strong bias toward your view.

Everyone knows that most people think he's dead. There's no real bias here. This thread isn't even directly related to my theory. It's about current events. You're being redundant and foolish again.

"As some of you know, I posted an article that I wrote containing my theory as to why the news of Osama bin Laden's death has been so elusive and the evidence nonexistent. Most people just reacted without actually reading it, but here it is if you want to give it a try for yourself."
If you don't think this statement of yours on the first post gives the thread a pro conspiracy bias, you are retarded. You posted your views on the incident -- why can't I post mine?

Breath oxygen, consume nutrients, water, find shelter.

At 5/12/11 12:42 AM, PhoenixGodwin wrote:

At 5/12/11 12:35 AM, Dubbi wrote: The U.S. military out of respect should supply Bin Laden''s family with clear evidence of his death -- yes, death: he is dead.

Quit saying that like you know. You don't, and neither does a single person here on this website. You're doing that thing again where you start brewing trouble for no good reason.

Well, I know that we killed Bin laden inasmuch as I know anything other common report is true -- eg: Floodwaters rise in the poverty-stricken Delta

As I haven't been there, I can't know with complete certainty that this report is accurate, that there's not actually some conspiracy going on, but I believe it nonetheless. Same with the Bin Laden incident; I haven't seen his corpse, but because I believe my president, I accept that he is dead.

I'm not trying to brew trouble, just making sure NGers understand that there are still many of us who think he's on dead, as this thread has a pretty strong bias toward your view.

It's pretty ironic how bad this thread is.