Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

Sweet baby jesus it works! thank you very much, kind sir.

I appreciate your help, but I don't think you're understanding my problem. Perhaps I have not been explaining myself well, so I will go into more detail.
I have a knob revolving in a circular path. The movie clip is of this knob tracing a circle. there are many notches in the circle. Ideally, I would like to be able to click a notch, and the knob would continue along it's path until it arrived at the desired notch, and then stop. I could then click another notch, and the knob would arrive at its desired destination without making any stops at the unrequested notches along the way. The knob would always be traveling in a clockwise manner.

Thanks, but I think I need something a little more complicated than that. In actuality, i have several buttons, and my ultimate goal is that when a button is clicked, the movieclip will progress from wherever it is in its timeline to the specific frame (i.e. frame 5) and stop. And no, I don't want to just click through the points in the movieclip's timeline.

I have a movieclip that is 80 frames. However, I'm trying to make it so that when you press a button, the movieclip progresses to the 5th frame, then stops. the movieclip has an instance name of Knob, and the button (also a movie clip) has an instance name of numa. here is the code i have so far:

numa.onPress = function(){
if(Knob._currentframe!=5)
Knob.play();
if(Knob._currentframe==5)
Knob.stop();
}

any help would be appreciated

At 6/17/10 06:39 PM, ProfessorFlash wrote: You don't need to fear that "omg what if I don't get a coder", because you will get one for sure even if the graphics are below average.

Thanks for the advice. This is actually exactly what I was worried about.

I am an artist, and have an idea for a game that I really want to do. It will by in the style of Myst, not really like the point and click games that are so ubiquitous on Newgrounds. As such, I don't think that it will be too hard to program. Unfortunately, my programming skills don't extend beyond buttons.

So far, all I have is the back story and the beginnings of a level sketched out on a notebook. I am aware that almost all programmers would not commit to helping me with so little done.

I ask, then, how much should I get done before a reasonable programmer would be willing to help? Should I work on making more quality movies to improve my "resume" on Newgrounds? Would screenshots of the game be enough? Should I be posting on a different board? Would some scanned sketches be good?

Basically, any advice on how I could attract a decent programmer would be appreciated. And if anyone is interested now for some reason, I'd love to start working with you sooner than later.

At 4/24/10 01:49 PM, Elfer wrote:

At 4/24/10 06:38 AM, satanbrain wrote: the capitol is not in paris

Actually, the capitol is in Paris. Paris itself is the capital.

lol, it's obviously London, idiot.

I vote for sawdust

I'll sign up.
It will force me to write, which is good...

May I please join?

This is something I wrote just before going to bed. I didn't really know where I was going when I started, and I still don't really know where its going. Comments? Critiques?

Sometimes, the paranoia creeps in. It usually happens at night, when everything is hidden behind the smoky blackness of the drawn shades and lifeless bulbs, cut off from the jumping flow of energy because I said so. It's not even that the room is very dark. Its just that the dull glare of the computer screen forces my pupils to stay wide open as I slog through countless web-pages, searching for God knows what. Digital numbers cut through the smoke and float through the air. Three hours and forty two minutes until sunrise. The red light of the fire alarm appears, and is gone, appears. Always moving, though. I stare at it for at least an hour, but I can never guess where it will show up next.
These lights are my only companions as I fight sleep in the night, too afraid to succumb to my dreams. Too afraid to be vulnerable again.
There's nothing to worry about, my doctor says. A dream is a dream. That's all. I told him that they weren't dreams, that I never feel more awake. Of course that's ridiculous. I was referred to a psychiatrist. I was told to pinch myself, to force myself awake if I was having a bad dream. Stupid. They aren't dreams I say, but, then, it's not my doctor's problem, I should talk to the psychiatrist.
Coffee.
Coffee is good. It helps me get through the night. Occasionally, if things are hard, I'll take an Adderall. I don't need that tonight, though. I can make it. I don't have any left, anyways. And I've had so much coffee. You could probably drown a whale with all the coffee I drank. I can picture it, a whale swimming through a sea of dark brown. Not so dark, though, that a couple rays of sunshine can't pass through, casting rippled patterns on the whales long grey back. So strange and peaceful...
But no! No sleep. Three hours and thirty nine minutes until morning. Great. Maybe I should turn on the lights. Those parched bulbs were practically begging me to release the tide of electricity and quench them in light. So thirsty, like little animals begging for their water. Waiting by the dry riverbank, waiting for the bounding energy to rush towards them, the odd little creatures quivering with excitement...
And then I was there. On the strange riverbank, with these strange light bulb creatures. I had let my guard down; I was asleep.

At 4/8/10 09:41 PM, Jaggadisha wrote:

At 4/8/10 05:05 PM, Starfishprime wrote: When is marijuana legal?

Depends on where you live. California is voting RIGHT NOW.

But... you previously said that all drugs are legal... way to shatter my fantasy of a future man with your mistakes, asshat.
However, if you do somehow provide an excuse as to how it fits, I have some questions

What color are dinosaurs (specifically the t-rex)?
What happens with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?
Has any progress been made on faster than light travel?
Are doctors obsolete?
How many licks does it take to get to the center of a tootsie pop?
What is the most popular breakfast?
Whats the most embarrassing thing that has happened to you?
When do hover boards come out?
Are digital tattoos common?
Is there anything like flash, to allow average people to make cartoons and games?
What is the most random and useless genetic enhancement that you have heard of?

half life two episode three is taking way too long to come out
after max translations,
23 years
And so I ask:
silly machine,
or
PREDICTOR OF THE FUTURE (read with echoes)

At 3/11/10 01:17 PM, ArmouredGRIFFON wrote:

It's because when desires or beliefs are considered an 'immoral action' by the general public, the freedom as a principle of that being a moral action to you as an individual is discriminated against.

What you fail to realize, or refuse to realize, is that beliefs are not harmless. When racist opinions are voiced en mass, as is happening, it is damaging to those who are targeted. Society as a whole has recognized this, and frowns upon it. This is not discrimination. According to your opinion, frowning on murder is also a form of discrimination. A murderer may desire to kill, and believe that killing is good. Your argument is built around a faulty definition. You must come up with a clear and accurate definition of what you believe is discrimination if you want to continue arguing.

I'm at college now, but I'm sure I mentioned that earlier on.

uhh.... cool? Do you want a medal or something?

GRIFFON seems to be arguing blindness, not racism. He seems to think that being able to tell there is a difference in skin color is being racist. This is not true. This is called being able to see colors. Racism is treating people different because of their race. In this world that Griffon is proposing, questioning why the black person didn't get the job over the equally qualified white person is not necessarily racism. If there is a continuing pattern of white people getting the job over black people, a man of perfect political correctness and with no racial biases could notice this pattern and question it, and remain completely non racist.

I do not believe such a person exists, but I think its stupid to think that such a person is not theoretically possible.

At 11/20/09 12:44 AM, Bacchanalian wrote: stuff

Either you are legitimately retarded, or you are desperate for arguments. Again, none of what you have said is new, as is any reply I can give. You have also twisted what I have stated to fit your argument. Either that, or you are unable to understand simple arguments. As such, I will not waste my time responding to them. If you are still confused, re-read my posts

summation of our discussions, from my view:
Me: things exist beyond the scope of the human mind
You: don't talk about that shit
-OR-
Me: Maybe god is like this
You: That doesn't apply to our conversation!
Me: Yes it does (gives proof)
You: turn into a boring ass

END!

At 11/18/09 06:31 PM, Bacchanalian wrote:

So what's wrong with a personified God again?

It seems unrealistic

There is a personal God and an impersonal God, no?

In the torah, yes. In the kabala, I don't know, I haven't studied it enough. And I don't believe you have either.

So then why can't we talk about knowledge!?

we can, and I did. my thoughts were that it didn't apply to him.

No. If it's faith, what does it matter that your position is more "believable" than another? If the solution for any further ambiguity is "faith" then why don't you allow the same concession for "God's a big guy in the sky" ?

All arguments about God are ultimately based on faith. If you want to take this to mean that god is a toaster, be my guest. I will still use my brain.

Ok. So then it does matter whether God is the highest or subordinate. Next up... How could one differ from the other? (Just off the top of your head)

It is, but as I said, its boring to talk about. see previous arguments. the real God includes the other, like a nail is part of a hand.

Also...

Distinguish between God and Universe.

none. maybe god extends beyond, if beyond exists.

What is there to sentience that does not include our sense of it?

perhaps sentience was a bad word. as I said, the there are no human words to describe it, because it is outside of human thought.

this conversation, as well as you, are becoming boring. I don't even know what you're trying to argue. your points are tired and stupid, you could have figured out my answers to all of them by looking at what I have said previously. unless you bring in new and interesting comments, go away.

At 11/18/09 04:33 PM, OnionsXD wrote:

fatman666: sure post up your script and we'll take a look at it.

cool, here it is. I already gave it to "ForNoReason" and he said he would voice it.
script:
(3 zombies hanging out together in an ally. Zombie 1 has no skin on his jaw, zombie 2 has no jaw, tongue flaps when he talks. However, they talk like normal humans. Also, zombie 3 is named Dave)

Zombie 1: So I was chillin in the park the other day, and this chick who jogged by was totally staring at me
Zombie 2: oh really?
1: yeah. She was totally checking me out
2: so did you talk to her, or something? Did you get her number?
1: well I was about to, but then I ripped her arm off and beat her to death with it/ripped her stomach open and strangled her with her intestine/some other gruesome death
2: shit, man! You always mess it up like this! When was the last time you got laid?
1: (sighs) I know, its just-
(rumbling in background)
1: aw, crap. I think its Boomer.
2: Oh well. Just be nice to him, I don't think he has any friends.
(enter Boomer)
1: Hey Boomer, whats up?
Boomer: disgusting zombie noises
1: Uh-huh...
Boomer: more disgusting zombie noises
(close up of zombie 1)
1: yeah...
Boomer: even more disgusting zombie noises
1: Well, I'm sorry they made fun of you, but maybe if you spoke in English once in a while, people would respect you a bi----, Aw, Boomer, what's Dave doing in your mouth?
(zoom out, Dave's legs protruding from Boomer's mouth, slowly kicking)
1: spit him out
(pause, Boomer spits Dave out, vomiting all over Zombie 2 in the process. Another pause, Zombie 1 attacks and mauls Zombie 2)

End

comment: I already have all zombie noises, don't worry about voicing boomer

At 11/18/09 03:01 PM, Fingercuffs wrote:

I never said animals should be thought of before humans, that is yet another false assumption about vegetarians. I'm not saying they are equal in a way that they should vote or drive cars... But They have an equal right to life, like it or not.

sorry, I misread this part of your post. My second point is the null, and logic does not flow.

However, if you think a chicken's life is equal to that of a human, than you sir, are a loony, and my arguments with you will now cease.

At 11/18/09 03:01 PM, Fingercuffs wrote:

the amount of human rights violations alone is enough to fill even Gandhi's limit twice over.

That is obvious.

you have admitted to point 1: innumerable human problems to worry about

I never said animals should be thought of before humans, that is yet another false assumption about vegetarians. I'm not saying they are equal in a way that they should vote or drive cars... But They have an equal right to life, like it or not.

you have admitted to point 2: humans are more important than animals

I am not looking at them as humans. They ARE beings and do suffer. (especially in factory farms which you help fund). I do not pity cows I pity the people who show no sign of respect towards the animals they consume and think of them as just "dinner".

you have admitted to point 3: animals are not humans

The logical conclusion of accepting all of these points is that you should spend the energy you do have on humans instead of animals.

I don't think of myself as a better person for caring about animals and choosing not to eat them, that has nothing to do with why I live my life this way. I just love animals enough not to eat them so I don't.

Like I have said, if the love for all animals comes naturally and randomly, fine. Kinda sucks, but whatever. If you looked for it, you are retarded. Also, question: do you think that I am a worse person for eating meat?

Haha wow. I'm pretty sure you know what I meant. World Causes, Not mechanical Correctness....

This was simply an exaggeration of my point, it can easily be extended to world causes. Some things are just more important than others. Like humans are more important than animals.

At 11/18/09 12:15 AM, Bacchanalian wrote:

Of course, if God cannot be discussed in personification, due to the fact that God cannot be comprehended nor communicated as such, then this conversation is also moot. Not just narrow. Moot. Because, and I quote, "knowledge itself means NOTHING outside of the human mind."

That is: whether or not God cares about knowledge is moot. Both sides would be moot.

Yes! This is almost exactly what I am saying! The only difference is that just because I am saying that knowledge does not exist outside of the human mind, I am not saying that t doesn't exist at all. It is very real inside the human mind. Similarly, just because God exists outside of the capabilities of our mind doesn't mean that he also exists within it. Therefore, we can attempt to comprehend God within the limitations of the human mind, as long as we understand that he is by no means bound to them. I can believe in at least the shadow this God casts on my mind, which for me is enough. It is clearly difficult to say much, as well as to argue against. Perhaps this is cheating, but it is truly what I believe, and I honestly don't know how it can be any other way. Our mental beings were designed by a very specific path of evolution. To say that a being that did not even evolve and which is on an entirely different scale would have a similar mental being to me seems ridiculous.

Back to questions... well... this one's a bit rhetorical. How is a moot argument a decent basis for anything?

Kabbalah posits a duality to God, doesn't it?

please be more specific

So in what light or context can we scrutinize God?

only in the context we are capable of, while keeping in mind that he expands far beyond this

However, if the purpose of this thread is instead "can we have faith that the abrahamic god is trustworthy as the highest being?" than I would say yes, and I would say that my posts have been extremely on topic. I gave my interpretation of god, which I have developed during my studies at a Jewish school, and explained why he is trustworthy as the highest being, and how knowledge plays no part in this.

"What makes the God who gave us the Torah any different from the cult leader who sent hundreds to their graves in mass suicide?"
My answer: "besides my faith, nothing."
Why I choose to believe that my God wrote the Torah is a matter of faith.

Though it's interesting as background information.

It was meant to clarify some aspects of my answer to the original question. It hopefully explains how I rationalize some of the problems my view presents. That is all.

Is prayer toward any individual part equal to prayer toward any other? Is prayer toward any individual part equal to prayer toward the whole?

no, but it's better than nothing. And hopefully, I'm praying to as much of the whole as humanly possible.

At 11/18/09 01:28 PM, Fingercuffs wrote:

At 11/17/09 07:56 PM, FAtmat666 wrote:

Not necessarily. There is a much greater risk of breast cancer, prostate cancer, heart attacks, Ovarian cancer, etc if you eat meat. Not saying though that vegs cannot get those problems but meateaters have a much better chance.

see above

I take a stand towards animal abuse/slaughter, child abuse, child labor, Environmental,etc., It doesn't drain me and I do not find it difficult to stand up for multiple causes that I believe in. You can't say that we vegetarians ONLY care about animals when there are many who care about multiple different issues.

I only listed a couple of the problems in the world. There are many, many, more. and there is only so much someone can truly care for without being completely depressed. everyone has their limit, and the amount of human rights violations alone is enough to fill even Gandhi's limit twice over.

Every cause has its purpose there is no "more noble cause" than the other.

There are, though. Humans should always be considered before animals. If you think that humans and animals are equal, then you sir are a loony. And there would be no arguing with you, as your core beliefs would be very different from those of a sane person.

They have life, they deserve to keep it. Not have it brutally taken away. Cows and chickens both have personalities and the ability to make lasting bonds with their group. Pigs are also smarter than dogs and have the mind of a three year old. So honestly I see no difference between animals we keep as pets and animals you consider food.

Trees have lives too! okay, that is a silly argument. But my point is that your true argument is that we are taking away the animals conscious, personality, bonds, etc. You are trying to see them as human, and then treat them like we would humans. Again, if you can't help it and it just one day happened that you had extreme pity for cows, fine. I myself am guilty of treating my dog like a human, and would never think about eating him. But to actively convince yourself that all animals are like humans is silly.
My sense of compassion was evolutionarily designed to be directed to humans. To consider myself a better person for directing them at animals is what I consider silly. I can't help doing it a little bit, I would not torture an animal. If I naturally couldn't eat an animal, then fine. But when I actively convince myself is when I have crossed the line to rediculous.

I just find it appalling that people (such as you) try to "rate" the importance of Activist Groups. They all have their purpose and each are just about as important as the other to the minds of those specific activists.

You're absolutely right. The advocate group that stresses the importance of opening your string beans in the correct manner is just as important as the advocate group for Darfur. My bad. I guess I'm appalling for ever considering otherwise.

At 11/17/09 10:03 PM, igott wrote:

At 11/17/09 09:44 PM, megakill wrote:

At 11/17/09 09:37 PM, igott wrote:

At 11/17/09 09:30 PM, megakill wrote: well. that was interesting.

and its about to get better...

You must have a shit taste in music.

thats a lovley opinion you've got there, i actually listen to just about every genre except most commercial dance and RnB, so chances are we probably like a lot of the same stuff.

1) RnB, like The Temptations, Smokey Robinson and Diana Ross, right?
2) So, where's your development in your ability to depict and study the music? So, saying that just because it's catchy and you enjoy, understand and relate to the lyrics makes it good right? Or is it the joke of a guitarist TRYING to act like Jimmy Page on a 6-string? I'm from that town, I've seen them play, they're not doing anything intermediate or insane.

Unless I misunderstood you, here is where you prove yourself to be a stuck up douche bag. I would understand if you were angry because you felt pressured to do something because it was popular, or if you felt that people do things just because the things are popular. I could respect you not doing these things (facebook, kings of leon, ect.) if you just didn't like them. However, you seem to stick your nose up to music just because it isn't what you consider quality. My music library has both songs that I think are good as well as songs that are just catchy and that I like listening to. I don't care if they're musical geniuses, as long as I enjoy their songs, I'll listen to them too. That doesn't make me a faggy hipster or a sheep. To me, your acts of fighting the trends are not done out of actual views, but rather as an attempt to set an image for yourself, that is, being different. to me, this is actually the definition of a hipster. All the hipsters I know work very hard to set an image for themselves, specifically the image of being different. You, sir, seem to me to be guilty of this.

First, I want to point out that using health benefits to favor vegetarianism is silly. Even if it is more healthy, you can be at least equally healthy while eating meat. It's fine if you want to be health conscious, but don't say it makes vegetarians better, because diets are not exclusive to them.

Next, there are many things wrong with the world that are much worse than killing animals, like child labor, and avoiding Nike shoes is way easier than being a vegetarian. I know a couple of vegetarians, and none of them care about nike or coke or any of the other myriad of problems in the world, and they can't. There's just too much fucked up shit. It's impossible to care about all of them.
I'm not saying that we shouldn't care about anything, I'm saying why not care about worse problems, and enjoy your meat? If you have to worry about something (and I don't) why not worry about how coke is treating people in south america for water? why not research companies that use child labor and boycott them? we can't do everything, so why not do the easy stuff, especially since, to me at least, they can be more noble causes?

finally, why caring for cows and chickens is stupid. suppose you saw someone playing with their dog or cat. "aww, how cute!" is what I would think. now, suppose you saw someone playing with a chicken. "what a loony!" is what I would think. chickens and cows do not play, they do not interact with people, and they do not give off the impression of love that so many people find in their dogs and cats. maybe, if I spent enough time with one, these connections would develop. However, as it stands, dogs and cats, as species, are associated with fun and affection and playing in my mind. I would even believe that they have emotions. Cows are associated with dull while alive and tasty while dead. I have no compassion for them, and I see no need to convince myself of their feelings. I am happy without compassion for them, and my lack of cow compassion does not realistically hurt one person. unless it hurts a vegeterian's feelings, in which case, stop being a pussy.
I refuse to spend so much effort shifting my mind to care and worrying so much about what I eat when it doesn't help people, and to me, it seems silly when other people do.
If the compassion somehow came naturally, and you found that one day you couldn't bring yourself to eat a cow, fine. but if you convince yourself with the logic "they're just like us!!" you're very, very, silly.

I can't believe I haven't heard about this club yet. How helpful!
I would appreciate it if you guys would review my two most recent movies:

• 
  Shadowman & The Garroter by FAtmat666

  Click to view.

  Type

  Movie

  Rated

  Ages 17+

• 
  Conscience and Therapy by FAtmat666

  Click to view.

  Type

  Movie

  Rated

  Ages 17+

Thanks in advance!

At 11/16/09 07:31 PM, aviewaskewed wrote:

At 11/16/09 06:52 PM, FAtmat666 wrote:

Rather, if there was no inclination towards selfishness, people would not be able to survive with free will. If we were completely love, with no selfishness at all, we would die.

Why would we die? What about the concept of free will and free choice makes us alive? There are plenty of dictatorships and such where the populace is controlled and they continue to survive. They might be miserable, but they are most definitely alive. This is the problem with dramatic statements like this.

Firstly, they have free will. The absence of free will implies the absence of choice. Their options may be terrible, but the choice is still there. Secondly, I'm not saying the concepts would make you dead inside, I'm saying you would physically die. Here is what happens, in my mind, if all selfishness suddenly disappears and is replaced with love:
Bob: "look! A bear!"
Dan: "I love bears!"
Bob: "Me too! It looks hungry. Here, bear, eat my leg!"
Dan: "you can eat mine, too!"

Every time I picked a fruit, or made some money, I would want to give it to someone else.

Not unless God programmed you without the survival instinct. Not to mention there are charitable people now who give and give, but still know to keep enough for themselves.

My point is that survival instincts are selfish. Keeping anything for yourself is selfish. Anything that is self serving is selfish. I am talking about the extreme low end of being selfish, things that seem obvious and necessary in order to survive.

However, because we also have free will, God can't tell us how selfish we can be. To me, all evil is derived from extreme selfishness.

So why couldn't God have simply programmed in some selfishness (which in this case you are describing the survival instinct) and not the extreme kind? You still haven't really addressed the empirical NEED for people to do horrible and evil things.

People do evil things because they are selfish. They want power, money, sex, psychological satisfaction, any number of things. God gave us the ability to think about our own needs. He didn't put a limit on this, because it is part of our will, and he seems to have given us free will. Some people take it to extremes, and commit acts we see as evil.

Natural disasters DO tend to have a purpose in keeping this world operating the way it should. So a natural disaster as a "why does God allow this?" does have a rational answer. Unless of course one asks why God couldn't find a safer way for such natural processes to be carried out, or why didn't he make us immune from the dangers of such?

We are mortal. We don't know what comes next, so we cannot ask why. Perhaps the world cannot satisfactorily operate in a different matter. People are everywhere, natural disasters cannot be averted. As I said, this presents a difficulty. The rest does not. However, the question "how does a good god allow natural disasters?" is different than "how does a good god allow evil?"

I don't understand why people arguing with me and others about this can't just tell the friggin truth: You don't know why, you just believe it's the case and that's the end of it.

Damn, you got me. I have no proof that God exists. To tell you the truth, I don't even think God gives a shit about good and evil. However, I feel that this theory does a pretty good job of explaining why there is evil in the world, whether or not God cares. We need to be able to think about ourselves, or else we die. Some people take this to another level, and do evil. We have free will, so this cannot be controlled by any means other than evolution, and perhaps our parents.

:Because unless you've got some amazing proof of the empirical why to it...that's what it comes down to, you just believe it has to be this way for a greater purpose.

I said nothing of a greater purpose. I merely said that if God is good, perhaps this is why he allows evil.

I just jumped in to the last page, so I don't know all of the subtleties that are going on. However, I don't think that invalidates any of my points

At 11/16/09 09:52 AM, Drakim wrote:

At 11/16/09 09:14 AM, JackPhantasm wrote: God created evil because good cannot exist without an opposite. How can you not understand that?

This is such a stupid argument. If God is omnipotent, then he should have no trouble creating good without evil. I mean, if I program a virtual world, I don't need to add in murder and rape just to allow song and dance.

true point. He should allow us to feel happy all the time. But if we were always happy, than why would we care about free will?
Rather, if there was no inclination towards selfishness, people would not be able to survive with free will. If we were completely love, with no selfishness at all, we would die. Every time I picked a fruit, or made some money, I would want to give it to someone else. There would be no time to build a house for myself, because I would be working for other people. I would also have to make everyone happy, because focusing on one person would be a form of selfishness. The introduction of selfishness allows me to build a house and a family. It divides us into communities which support themselves. However, because we also have free will, God can't tell us how selfish we can be. To me, all evil is derived from extreme selfishness.

But even if evil had to exist for good to exist, it's still pretty moot. There is tons of unnecessary evil in the world, like earthquakes and tsunamis. You don't need to allow those to allow humans to be good and have free will.

I'm not sure I would call earthquakes and the like evil. They bring sadness and pain, yes, but shit happens. This is a difficult point to argue, though. Perhaps free will extends to all things, not just humans? Natural disasters were essential to making the world habitable, and to making it how it is today. God may have given the world free will, and will not stop the disasters just because the world is habitable. Or perhaps they are essential to keeping the world alive.

At 11/16/09 09:56 AM, morefngdbs wrote:

He never made a damn point !

Really? I thought I made many points...

His chicken & egg reference, his 'question is too narrow" the whole subject of this thread cannot be answered, unless you just accept "Their is a GOD...at least one, now maybe 2..

This is actually exactly one of my many points. By referring to the chicken and the egg, I was referring to a question with no answer. As you so helpfully pointed out, it is impossible to know whether the God of the Torah is truly the highest power, or if there is one higher than him, or if he is the wrong god and there is a right one, etc. , and it is therefore, in my opinion, a boring question.

His point there is you've got no information...how do you argue validity about greater or lesser gods & any validity to any of it when you still can't even prove there's even 1 god to start with ?

my belief is that God is everything. Whether or not there is some sort of overarching conscious is where my faith comes into play. However, my God exists with or without this. Bacchanalian's point, however, was not really a point. He was just complaining that I brought to the table a different concept of God than the one he wanted to talk about.

Drakim's ideas are as flawed as any other & I'm really getting tired of the old cliche argument on Atheist tack...Atheism has nothing to do with it. Religion has nothing to do with reality where god is concerned IMO.
God & or God's are completely seperate from religious belief !
Why is that you say ?
If we knew positively that there was a divine presence...a god, & he was the god called -"the flying spagetti monster" & he had recently appeared & informed the whole damn world last Tuesday... & not some half mad delude old guy out in a desert somewhere... but shook the whole damned planet ,appeared to millions of people....
That he loved his people to eat pasta & tomato sauce on his holidays etc...do you think for 1 fuckin minute that the other religious groups, who have no proof of their god wouldn't lose members, if not collapse completely ?

so, you're telling me that if some gigantic ball of floating spaghetti comes along and tells me to eat pasta and tomato sauce, I should worship it?
I am well aware of the concept of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, however, and I believe you are using it out of context. The idea of FSM was developed to fight religion being taught in the classroom, a concept I fully support. It's point is that belief is not fact, or even theory, as people can believe anything and need no proof. Therefore, it should not be taught as fact or theory, or even taught at all against someone's will.
Coincidentally, your point that nobody would worship FSM if he came along is also neither fact nor theory, but speculation. You are probably just as guilty of having faith in certain things as I am in my faith of God.

Religion is not fact. I, as well as most religious people, will not hesitate to admit that. It is faith. For some reason, you are convinced there is some secret conspiracy to hide the true meaning of religion from you, and you say the faith argument is old and you want to see a different argument.

The Faith argument is old & it is really really fucking boring seeing it,

OMG!!! SEE??!??

just about as boring as the atheist tack of them picking on religion, all you who really want to be right in religion (your specific views in particular) being the 'right one' God's on your side & you were right all along .

yeah... If I thought my god was the wrong one, I'd change...
I know many atheists, however, and none of them attack my religious views. We may have discussions about it, but they would never pick on my religion. I don't think that SadisticMonkey was saying that atheists just pick on religion, but rather that you are simply looking for a fight rather than arguing ideas. In fact, you are completely off topic and this rant (as well as my response) belongs in a different thread.

The summation of your argument seems to be "religion has no proof, faith is stupid," and you somehow streach this out for more than a sentence. All religious people, however, already know the lack of proof and have accepted faith. These arguments are not going to persuade them, and if you want to keep arguing, find some new points as these were old and tired before you even said them.

Don't seem to grasp without something substantial , you have nothing, & a nothing god, who has been deluded by....wait for it .... a more powerful nothing entity, who's fucking around with the first ...its cyclic BS.

Same argument, we have no proof. OMFG REELEE??? I guess with this stunning revelation, which I have somehow been unaware of my entire life, I will have to give up all my religious views.

As Fatmat666 said " no amount of argueing or yelling can have any proof" His arguments are at least based on his belief & where he says "the torah, asuming that its god's voice, is rock solid"

and yet you still yell. Because you do not have faith does not mean that it doesn't exist, and it doesn't mean that it is stupid.

Asuming, faith... all empty nothing words.

You assume that faith is empty, I assume because you find nothing there. See all these assumptions we make? God is just one you choose not to accept. Which is fine by me. I honestly don't care whether you have faith or not. You just need to come to terms with the fact that some people don't mind these assumptions. Some people don't need to have logic support everything they believe. I'll make a bold claim here: I am not a robot. If I had to explain every thought, every belief, every action I take through logical means, my life would not only be very boring and slow, it would also quickly loose meaning.

to me, meaning, like knowledge, exists only in the human mind. It is an abstract concept, that, if you think about it, makes no logical sense. What is the meaning of a pencil? To write? That is the meaning our minds assign to it. it's meaning as a writing utensil does not exist anywhere else. It's meaning could also quickly be changed to anything. It's meaning could be to erase, or to help us release frustration as we break it, or to make someone happy as a gift, or to cause pain as we stab someone with it. All of these meanings exist only in our mind, in reality it is only wood and charcoal, and it doesn't give a shit if we break it or write with it. It just is. It doesn't even matter that we made it. Robots, the ultimate extension of logical beings as we are capable of imagining, have no use for meaning. the pencil has several programmed and learned possibilities for use. It will be utilized towards a goal, which is pre-programmed by humans, and just as abstract as meaning and knowledge. To me, faith is like these things. It is part of what makes me human, and part of what helps me to love life. I am in no way implying that by choosing to not have faith, you are a robot. I am sure you are just as much a victim to the other concepts as I am. Just understand that to me, faith is just as valid as any other part of the human condition.

I choose in one god, perhaps to you it seems arbitrary. However, to me this God represents the love and wholeness I want my universe to be, so I choose to have faith in it. This god gives me access to a community of people who I can love and support, and who will love and support me. I do not use my religion for hate, only to make me a happier and better person. It is not logical, it is not factual, and I don't care.

I read your first post like you asked, and will respond because it is at least somewhat on topic. God created time. Therefore, it does not apply to him. Beginnings are defined by time. Therefore, God has no beginning.
actually, that wasn't really on topic either.

I apologize to Drakim for going so far off topic throughout this post.

At 11/16/09 07:10 AM, Drakim wrote:

What? Why? Why can't the lower God be a separated being? I mean, we humans seem capable of having our own agenda and not merely being an extension of something above. What if this higher God simply gave the lower God "free will"?

I don't think you have addressed this by merely saying "it's not possible". If you want to argue this, I want to hear a specific reason why the lesser God must be an extension of the true God.

I will attempt to answer your question by assuming the worst case scenario -- that is the scenario which seems the most difficult to explain. To me, this is the assumption that the God who gave us the Torah existed, and he believes himself to be the highest god and omnipotent, while in fact he is not.

According to my and i believe the Kabala's definition of the true God, God is everything. This includes people, this includes rocks, and this includes the false god. This is not necessarily a question of free will; I do not control each of my white blood cells, but I would still consider them a part of me.
This false god is still a part of God, and therefore has a part of God's voice.

This, however, begs the obvious question: "What makes the God who gave us the Torah any different from the cult leader who sent hundreds to their graves in mass suicide?"
My answer: "besides my faith, nothing."
Why I choose to believe that my God wrote the Torah is a matter of faith.
However, if it was a false god who wrote the Torah, I would only be praying to him as a part of the God I do believe in.
I don't really pray that much, though, so... whatever.
I hope I answered your question, if I didn't, please point it out to me.

At 11/15/09 08:59 PM, Bacchanalian wrote:

Well pardon me. I didn't realize what you were saying was operating under the context of Kabbalah since it was the LAST thing you mentioned.

I was not, as you claim, operating under the context of the Kabala. However, in my second post I pointed out that my views were in fact in agreement with those posed in the Kabala, and therefore in agreement with the Abrahamic God.

No. Kabbalah's definition of God holds a duality in which He is sentient and therefore holds the capacity to know, unlike a rock.

I never claimed that God was like a rock, only that a rock doesn't have to know in order to comply with our knowledge of a rock. That therefore, the universe would be fine without the concept of knowledge.
I also stated that God does have some sentient capacity, although it almost certainly does not parallel ours, or even our view of it. I argued that being "sentient" does not necessarily make him care about knowledge. This is the basis of my post. If you have an argument that being sentient without knowledge is an impossibility, please pose it. However, I will state again that to me this view seems extremely narrow, and that while god may have all the knowledge of human people, knowledge itself is a narrow expression of how we choose to interpret the world, and means nothing outside of the human mind.
Also, what I said about the Kabala does not discuss god being sentient. Unless you know more Kabala, I don't know why you would argue this.

If you mean to say we should be talking about what a big man sitting in the clouds thinks, than I don't know why anyone would be discussing this.

Right. Cause talking about something that cannot be expressed by human words or thought about by human minds is a much better starting point for a conversation.

So, then, you agree that this is about a big man in the clouds? I do believe that my version of god is more interesting as well as more believable than just a bigger, more powerful person. If god was limited to human thought, he would not be omnipotent. to me this is painfully obvious.

We're not here to discuss different interpretations of the Abrahamic God. We're here to discuss the consequences of a knowing sentient God - of which the Abrahamic God is one.

according to Drakim, the OP, he is in this thread "asking if God's authority, if he exists, really is that rock solid." My post gives my opinion on this. There is no god higher than god. If there was, the lower god would simply be an extension of the higher god, and knowledge would play no part. The Torah, assuming that it is god's voice, is rock solid. The question for me, then, is whether the Torah is God's voice, and as I stated earlier, this is a question of the power of spirituality.

Saying, "Well I don't think God works this way" is irrelevant. Given that God works this way... then.. etc etc.

If you want me to respond to the specific question "given that everything in the torah is true, can God know that he is the highest power?" than I will answer that as well. This is precisely the chicken and the egg argument that I attributed your ideas to earlier. He is or he isn't the biggest one. If you want the question to be so narrow, than as I said before, it is boring. no amount of arguing or yelling can have any proof, or can even have any persuasive power. If this is the purpose of this thread (and I hope it is not), than this thread is extremely boring and pointless, and I'm sorry I wasted my time with such nonsense.
However, if the purpose of this thread is instead "can we have faith that the abrahamic god is trustworthy as the highest being?" than I would say yes, and I would say that my posts have been extremely on topic. I gave my interpretation of god, which I have developed during my studies at a Jewish school, and explained why he is trustworthy as the highest being, and how knowledge plays no part in this.