At 5/22/09 06:08 PM, Drakim wrote:

But that's only you. I feel that this trend goes for a lot of people. Like, when there is an atheist doing something which is common for a religion, such as trying to "convert" somebody, you usually get to hear the "he is just making atheism into another religion". But like, don't they realize how negatively they are setting the bar? Just another religion? You are talking as if religions are bad things, and that the atheist should know better!

Yeah, defnintely can't generalize my points to any major degree.
What's the saying? "The extremists are the loudest" or whatever?
"Silent majority"?

That said, I do my fair share of ragging on those extremists. I've probably said the "you're turning your atheism into that which you hate about theism" comment umpteen times on NG.

The fact that I do it fairly frequently may make one question just how many DO follow my standpoint of atheists 'knowing better' being self-inflicted though.

What you also have to consider is the fact that this is NG, an environment suited to these sorts of discussions. I know my life experiences don't count for the world, but in my own circle of reality religion comes up once a blue moon, and it's initiated by an atheist once every millenia it seems.

All in all, I think it's a minor point though. Just one of the oddities people experience on a daily basis.
Christians say "God damn it" as frequently as anyone, and atheists still utter little phrases like "thank god for small mercies", etc.

Whatever it is about "atheist culture", and I use that phrase with all the hesitance I can, there's defnintely an expression of superiority;
whether that's because the most vocal are people like Dawkins, Hitchens, and other public intellectuals, or because there's a self-perception of atheism being a more "advanced" mindset than theism (AKA "I don't need a god, neener neener neener"), or some other standpoint of it being a sort of high IQ society I think it's there for a reason.

Stereotypes suck, and you do find a shit ton of examples where they don't hold weight, but they're there for a reason. People are generally dumb, but patterns are hard to ignore.

My 5 cents.

At 5/22/09 07:56 AM, Drakim wrote: I've come to the realization that people seem to expect more of atheist in many things. It's as if we all knew that atheists are much smarter than the general public and should thus "know better".

Guilty as charged......but to be fair, I'm only basing that expectation off of what a lot of atheists have themselves told (lectured) me.

Constantly being thrown links about how atheists are smarter, most scientists are atheists, best countries are atheist, etc BY atheists kinda defeats this complaint......since it's self-inflicted.

So, what is really the reason for all this? I guess atheist could take it a sort of compliment that they "should know better", but still, I find it quite hilarious.

The reverse is also true, and applied to these boards especially, is just downright pitiable. Christians are supposed to act the part, and often a nice retaliation to someone like Shaggy being a dickhead is that he's not acting in accordance to his belief. If NG was an accurate sample of society, I would safely say most Christians should know better as well, most here are confrontational, abusive, and generally asshats who will say "fuck you" just about as quick as "praise God".

It's one point I'm sure even Poxpower would agree with me on.

What do you think? Am I all off about this, or?

I think what we expect of people is in many cases determined by how they present themselves.

Christians are all over these boards spouting how they're supposed to be nice and shit while simultaneously spouting some of the foulest language this side of the interwebs.

Atheists are all over these boards spouting how they're supposed to be statistically smarter than theists while simultaneously spouting some of the most idiotic arguments on the other side of the interwebs.

I say just call their bluffs. Ask Christians why they should be pressing their religion if they can't seem to follow the rules themselves. Ask atheists to take an IQ test and compare it to whomever they argue against. It would solve both problems.

At 5/2/09 11:22 AM, morefngdbs wrote: ;;;While you are not ...right !

Almost a sentence.....

In any case, my apologies, I forgot sarcasm buttons are broken on NG. I was doing the ususal "theists are stupid because" and reversing it.

;;;;everything is a NWO conspiracey bullshit with you dude...you really need to get out more.
The radio show that that site links too is pretty interesting.

No, I don't consider everything an NWO conspiracy. I consider bullshit propaganda trying to pass off as history and archaeology bullshit, NWO or otherwise.

Yeah it existed as a graveyard...not as projected in the bible.

Not the point.
That site was not trying to differentiate between what archaeological remains have provided compared to biblical description, it was trying to deny the existence of the site at all.

This shit is offensive to me as a HISTORIAN, nothing more, nothing less.

Archaeologists rarely agree with others views ...they all want their view to be mainstream & one only needs to look at any subjective archaeologist site & you get more than one view.

What the fuck are you talking about?
Am I talking to Dr. More? I didn't realize you had such carnal knowledge on how the minds of archaeologists worked! Where did you get your doctorate from, it sounds like a wonderful school.

Seriously, you are talking right out your ass, and you know it. You've met maybe 1 archaeologist in your life, I guarantee it.

I hold your opinion to be somewhere on the scale which requires magnification to actually see.

And yours is somewhere between left field and the 3rd row bleachers.

This site has links etc. to the fallicy of Christianity...the plagerism of earlier religion's dogma & in some cases exactly transfered. Like virgin birth, son of god etc.

You know what else has links?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity _of_Jesus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_
Jesus

But I offered it up to point out the extremists views on Christianity... like Ken Humphrey's .

Because all Christians are like Ken Humphrey.
I guess that makes all atheists like Dawkins.

Which by the way has fuck all to do with atheism...just because someone doesn't believe in Jesus or the Christian god...it doesn't automatically make them an atheist.

A well constructed sentence. Has nothing to do with ANYTHING, but a well constructed sentence nonetheless.

You make the mistake of thinking I'm attacking you, and that this offends me as anything other than a person who studies this time period intimately.

You should be smart enough to differentiate me calling you an idiot, and calling your argument idiotic.

And I wouldn't have a problem with the site if it didn't try to use bad history and archaeology to back it's points. They could have said everything they did, but the minute they said "history proves XYZ" they failed, and failed hard.

Besides, it sounds like you believe whatever they tell you. Have you done any of this research on your own? Have you bothered to critique what they feed you, or are you just gobbling it up because you agree with the main message of Christianity being bollocks?

Have a little honesty, and look through what people who KNOW the period have said about the topic, form your own decision, and stop buying into every little idiot's site that comes along and agrees with you.

Here, if you don't wanna bother with the above, cut right to the chase.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus-myth_
hypothesis
REAL arguments, that acutally hold water and shit. I'd rather you copy-pasta something concrete if you're just gonna be a parrot and not think for yourself.

Like I said, your garbage site didn't offend me as anything other than someone who has spent a long time studying that information.

Have a nice day.

At 4/27/09 11:06 AM, Diederick wrote:

I'd tell them I am glad that they got better, but that it is time to stop taking the medicine.

Am I talking to Dr. Diederick?

I don't know about you, but I have witnessed some negative sides of religion. A placebo should not have negative sides, it's not supposed to do anything but make the patient feel like he is being cured. The fact that religion, apart from its surreal positives, has a negative influence should be enough to look for alternatives. Reality-based philosophy looks like that alternative.

simple answer to that:
Religion=/= Placebo.

The last sentence is important though:
Beause it shows that personal perspective on it.

You've had a bad experience, therefore you look for alternatives.

But you make the assumption everyone else has the same experiences.

The only issue with Existentialism, for example, is that it is a bit harder to understand than the plain punishment & reward policy of God. Lack of intellect is in the way of this progress.

Yes. Theists are theists because they're dumber than you.
I'm calling that bluff. Start showing me some IQ test scores.

I'm sorry if I seem arrogant, but unlike religious pushy people, the thing I push is actually real. What's wrong with waking people up when it's time for breakfast?

Yah, problem is religious people believe God is real. So who's right? You're parroting them with your alternatives. And if you were really looking for alternatives that are "reality-based" you would know reality is dependent on perspective. That's why no 2 eyewitnesses ever agree, that's why memories change over time, etc.

But if you're honest about alternatives, try Absolute Relativism and come back to me.

At 5/1/09 10:45 AM, morefngdbs wrote: Like this place
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/

This is why Atheists are fucking idiots.

That site is parallel to zeitgeist. Full of the most inaccurate "facts" ever, there only to give weight to a highly politicized inaccurate point.

For ex.)

Nazareth not existing?
Archaeologists disagree.

There are sites that offer differing points of view using legitimate arguments.

The site you offered is NOT one of them.

At 4/26/09 06:48 PM, poxpower wrote: The sad thing is that I'm not sure if you're joking or not.

Yeah, definitely not.

What political issue is this thread about?

Banning catholicism?
1st amendment.

Thread over.

The rest of the 3 pages this shit has spawed?
"Catholicism is bad" and "Catholics are close-minded".

"No it isn't" and "no we aren't" are the replies.

There's no discussion, no debate, no issue. There's just rants, and answers to said rants.

Seriously, you tell me what's the political issue I am supposed to contribute an opinion to, and I'll contribute it.

But if the topic is "Catholics are idiots, let's look at all the weird shit they do/believe in", then I'm falling in line:

My opinion:
No, you generalizing fuck clown.

Otherwise, there are two religion threads on the front page that would be perfect receptacles for the crap in this thread.

"Banning Catholicism" either as a means of phasing out religion, or the obvious lack of respect you people feel you owe Catholicism.

Otherwise, make a an Anti-Catholic club, or join the Atheist Army, and share your thoughts there. Fuck with the Catholic Crew if it makes you feel better. But I ask, what is political about this thread? What is the POLITICAL topic that is supposed to be DISCUSSED?

Because there's a complete lack of political discussion here: Only one group of people agreeing that "Catholics are close-minded nutjobs", and another group of people agreeing that, "no they aren't".

Do it:
Find me a post that neither implies "Catholics are close-minded idiots" nor a post that implies "No they aren't" in this thread.

At 4/26/09 06:54 PM, Brick-top wrote: The best part is if Imperator makes a spelling mistake he'd need to ban himself for a month.

Wanna guess which generic fuck category your posts here fall under?
1. "I don't think many believers like or want to hear other people even if they claim they're open to it."

2. "Did you know the official Vatican youtube channel censors it's comments, video replies and disables ratings?
Gee, it's like they don't want the people speaking their minds."

3. "Don't be silly. Obviously Gay Marriage is far worse than murdering someone. Apparently according to some people letting homosexuals get married it's going to ruin everyone's lives, destroy democracy and bring the whole species to extinction.
Oh yes, I have heard Theists say this."

NICE POLITICAL ARGUMENTS!!!

+5.

Here, lemme respond to them:

1. No, stop being generalizing. There are 1 billion catholics, and 2 billion christians, plus another 900 million hindu, plus jews, muslims, etc.

2. No, stop being generalizing. Did you know Newgrounds censors it's comments, video replies, and deletes user content? Gee, it's like they don't want people speaking their minds. Keep in mind that line of argument is the same one Phelps followers use to protest at the funerals of US servicement.

3. STOP BEING GENERALIZING. How many theists? Of what religion? Out of how many you've talked to? Out of how many there actually are in the fuckin religion? 7 people......out of 1 billion?

Or do you know millions of people who have made that argument?

I heard once we should ban Catholicism. (fuck the 1st amendment).
Oh yes, I've heard atheists make that argument.......

Hey look Brick! You've become a stereotypical asshole!! Well, "when in Rome" I suppose. If you wanna make yourself look like an idiot, I guess this is the perfect non-political anti-Catholic vs pro-catholic thread to do it in.

This topic belongs here, in the anti-Catholic club.

Because other than a display of the Topic Starter's complete ignorance of the 1st Amendment, there is nothing political about this thread.

A topic discussing the Catholic Church's role in the world would be political.

But this is a thread where non-Catholics have grouped to talk smack about Catholics, and where Catholics have flocked to defend allegations of all being rapists and and close-minded morons.

At 4/26/09 05:20 PM, Rovthewhiteshadow wrote:
Why do you think the vatican in rome is the richest country?

Congratulations, you are the biggest fucking idiot on the entire thread.
It was a close race between you and the OP, who apparently forgot other people in this country besides himself existed, let alone had rights.

But you take the cake for not being able to even do something as simple as wiki Vatican City.

It's fuckheads like you who make theists get so defensive.
It's a damn good thing no one was stupid enough to make me a mod, because you and the OP would be gone for a month, just for lowering the collective intelligence of the boards.

At 4/26/09 08:56 AM, Diederick wrote: @ Imperator.

Hah, I'm more Existentialist than Nihilist, so there's no need to be surprised about any positive approach to mankind.

Calling the notion that religious positive influence can be replaced with secular alternatives a "BS reply" doesn't make it less valuable. It is actually a key point, because it makes religion useless. So what do you think there is about religion that couldn't possibly be replaced with non-religious alternatives? And don't say "Faith", I mean positive things. I'll make a start:

You miss the point.
It's not that the idea of having alternatives is BS, it's the idea that you think you know what's best for them is BS.

You cannot on one hand criticize religion for thinking they know what's best for people and trying to convert them to that, and then on the other hand talk about what's best for people and try to convert them to that.....

The reason religion converts people is because they believe they know what's best for you, and believe religion to be necessary for your life. You "need" to be saved, you "need" Jesus, you "need" to pray to god, and all that other crap.

It's BS. You would agree with me here.

But I get the feeling what you're trying to do is sell me the alternatives. And really, this is no different than a Jehova's Witness trying to convince me I "need" Jesus. You're just taking an opposite stance, but you're still trying to sell me your worldview.

What's BS about it is you don't know these people, so how can you have any idea what's best for them? Because it works for YOU? Maybe I'm misreading a little, but I think ultimately you can present the alternatives, but you cannot assume what people need and don't need. That decision ultimately has to come from them, does it not? Otherwise, how are you any different from the religious nuts telling me I need saving? All you're doing is telling me I "need" the opposite.

Hopefully you see what I'm getting at.
It's not the notion of alternatives I find distasteful, it's the presumption you know what will work for me.

You know, I've always viewed religious conversion as selling a particular world view. What I don't like about it is the assumption that everyone NEEDS that world view, or even that it's good for them.

And one of the biggest issues I have with atheists is they do the SAME THING; the assumption everyone NEEDS that world view, and that it's good for them.

So I ask the same question......for the 3rd time:

What do you say to the person who says religion has helped them through drug abuse, depression, etc etc.

How can you say the alternatives will be better for them? You don't know them.

Imagine what would happen to the US dollar on world markets if they decided to dump the hundreds of thousands of billions of dollars back on the world currency markets ?

This belongs in John Stewart's "Shit that will never happen" segment.....

These are the droids you're looking for.

Theory that democracy only lasts in cycles of 200 years and inevitably falls into autocracy.

It's actually a lot like any nice looking theory. Works on a very wide basis, but the more scope and detail you apply, the quicker it falls to shreads.

#1: "The fall of the Athenian Republic' does not exist as far as I'm aware.

#2: If this was real, he certainly wouldn't say democracy "always" fell into dictatorship, considering the "Fall of the Athenian Republic" did no such thing.......And if undergrads are pointing out errors in the scholarship, you can pretty much be assured it's actually Crap.....

I'd like to thank you in advance for allowing me to literally copypaste a lot of the material from my previous post. Makes it easier on me! :)

At 4/24/09 10:31 AM, Diederick wrote:
I might not have any grade in Theology, but I do think about it, I believe that's worth something.

And what level of "worth" do you think your thoughts on religion have?
How would they compare to say......a religious person's thoughts on religion?

I think about theoretical physics occasionally, most often when I'm watching "The Universe" segments on the History Channel, but I don't necessarily rate them very high......

Religion is an unnescary negative influence in this world, which most unfortunate asset is the tendency to multiply itself and spread to other individuals. This is bothersome.

Repeat:
"how would you respond to someone who said religion has helpled them? Helped them stay away from drugs, find happiness, fill a void, act as guidance, or what have you?"

Religion is no more than a placebo with side-effects, people don't really need placebo's to go clean from abusive behaviour (including addiction and compulsions), they just need the motivation coming from it. There are brilliant secular alternatives to religion that can provide for these things, the best would be to completely exclude the placebo part and go right at the heart of it by explaining people why they are caught in this abusive behaviour (dopamine action) and helping them with medicine and counselling. Reality is always better than fiction.

Repeat:
"I'm guessing you'd say "You can get those things elsewhere". Which is another BS answer I hear; Do you know that person? Then you don't know what they can or cannot attain, what is best for them, or anything else."

As a Nihilistic Existentialist my personal approach to the world is very profitable to that world. Perhaps more profitable than any religious approach. Religion quite simply belittles the potential of mankind and it's utter nonsense to say religion is a necessity. It has been of great cultural value, but now that we have the ability, we should load in with reality.

As a nihilistic existentialist I'm rather surprised to hear you talking about the "potential of mankind" at all.....

Otherwise, I kinda called it with the whole 'Introverted view of the world" thing, didn't I?

Furthermore, there is a significant between the two statements you pose; one is right and the other is wrong. You are stunning me with the notion that choosing non-Theism is equally presumptuous as choosing Theism. There is a difference between reality and fiction, you know.

Probably should have added this one in, but I figured you wouldn't actually try to find the difference. Oh well on me.....

So you know for a fact that people who say they were saved by their religion are lying?

By some of the characters I've seen here, I'd wager choosing non-Theism is MORE presumptuous than choosing Theism. I'm more apt to hear "I'm smarter than you because I'm atheist" than anything. As if somehow the conversion or discovery of atheism adds 30 to one's IQ......

Besides, I'm not quite sure authenticity has a bearing on presumption. Either way, the statement holds that the other is worse off. All you're doing is really CONFIRMING my conclusion by stating "The difference is when atheists say it, it's true".....

But I'll take your comments in stride, Mr. Nihil Exist.
Try not to cut yourself in the meantime!!

"You shouldn't be playing the lottery," said Campfield. "You're not going to win. It's only going to draw you deeper into poverty, and, therefore, you shouldn't be eligible for the prizes."

??? The logic is reversed. You shouldn't be allowed to PLAY because it will draw one deeper into poverty. WINNING would get one out of poverty.....

I mean what the fuck is that shit? I'm poor, I buy a ticket and win a few mill. But now instead of getting the money and escaping poverty, I'm not allowed to because I was too poor to be allowed to collect the prize in the first place? The FUCK?!?!?!?

He said the bottom line is that if you need the government's help to pay your bills, you shouldn't be wasting your money.

The US government is the last group ON EARTH I want telling me about wasting fucking money.....

Lewis Black was right. The only thing worse than a Republican or a Democrat is when these pricks work together.....

Whenever I give the government money, they spend it on whatever the fuck they damn well please. When the government gives money to me, I can only spend it on certain shit.

This proposal is a waste of fucking money, where's my bill to limit government spending of my taxes on things that make fucking sense?

At 4/24/09 07:03 AM, Diederick wrote: Besides, religion is a fault in mankind, so I'm doing the world a favour in trying to fix it.

Oye.....

You realize such an initial stance like this is a bad way to go about "fixing" the world, right? I mean, forgive my Godwin fault here but......how far away are you from reaching a Final Solution to this problem?

I'm guessing your actual understanding and experience with religion has been.....shall we say not Ph.D worthy, if you don't mind being honest with yourself. This makes your conclusion that religion is a "fault" preconceived. I've had this conversation before:

I think a better idea would be to gain a fuller understanding of the situation. After all, how would you respond to someone who said religion has helpled them? Helped them stay away from drugs, find happiness, fill a void, act as guidance, or what have you?

Would you simply say they are wrong, because religion is a "fault", or call them liars or what?

I'm guessing you'd say "You can get those things elsewhere". Which is another BS answer I hear; Do you know that person? Then you don't know what they can or cannot attain, what is best for them, or anything else. Religions convert because they feel it is best for you. Atheists do the same, without even realizing it.

Don't fall into the trap I see a lot of atheists do, which is come out of one introverted view of the world and fall right into another. Too many people here seem to have that "I used to be religious until I got SMART!" attitude, and develop a completely unhealthy approach to the world and religious people as a result.

Because really, how much of a difference is there between that statement and "I used to be lost until I got SAVED!"?

realistically, there's not much. Presumptions on both ends, and superiority issues all around. One supposes everyone still in the religious category is a moron, the other supposes everyone not in the religious category is a moron. See the difference?

At 4/23/09 02:40 PM, Brick-top wrote: I said I can use the same reason for insulting Christians as he uses for Atheists.

What's the point of saying something like that at all? I know it's a minor issue and you're generally pretty good about this stuff but,

1.) Such a "threat" is good for only one thing, and that's to highlight your own supposed superiority. And it's something you're not gonna follow through anyways, because if I called your bluff on it,

2.) As avie already pointed out, you'd look like a tool doing so. Believe me, there would be nothing more rewarding for your detractors than to watch you sink to their level, and become the thing you hate.

Had I been your opponent, you would have just given me a win-win situation. Either you recant, or you call my bluff and demean yourself. Either way you look bad.

Besides, we've got enough idiot atheists and idiot theists as is. "If I had a nickel" for all the times people whose heads are stuck up their own asses got bitchy over people whose heads are stuck up their own asses......

Between overzealous atheists thinking they're better because of XYZ, and overzealous theists believing they're better because of ABC, I think we've reached our fill here. Shaggy and his atheist equivalent seem to be iconic enough that we don't really need any copycats.

The irony is while each side will mock the other over intelligence, ALL of them are talking straight from their asses, since I've yet to see anyone produce an IQ test to attempt to back up those claims.........chicken shits.......

At 4/18/09 02:49 PM, altmeister wrote: Logic can only be achieved by reading the scripture of the Lord. Tell me atheists, how can something come from nothing?

Clearly you misunderstand what "Logos" means......

in any case, someone smart once said it's not possible for people to be illogical, only to be irrational.
So I find the premise moot.

At 4/20/09 08:06 PM, thedo12 wrote: it's kinda funny, when you think that the catholic church actualy censered some of micheal angelos paintings . ( painting over genital's ect)

History is usually not without a certain sense of irony.

Hence why it repeats a fair bit....

I'm sorry, this is the gamers generation:

Hence why it clips into itself a fair bit.....

I decided before I would click on the thread, I would wager that it would contain an argument either that Hitler was ok because he had good intentions (Rebuild Germany, create a german reich), or because his atrocities fall right in par with similar atrocities done by other people.

Next time I'm gonna have to remember to mail someone first, so I have some evidence that I'm the next Nostradamus.

although realistically anyone who's been here over 2 months could have predicted the above.

At 4/16/09 10:31 AM, Aughiris wrote: Imperator, you are so intelligent. So intelligent that you looked up on my profile to know my age. Oh wait. You didn't. Never mind.

Didn't have to. With responses like that, you're projecting so hard you may as well give powerpoint presentations with your face.

Besides, even if I were indeed 15 years old, what does it matter? There is no prove for your god, so I don't believe in it. It's as simple as it gets.

Yes indeed. Besides the glaring oversight and prefabricated conclusions, what makes you say what you just said?

Here's a hint: The FUCK makes you think I believe in god? And a Judeo-Christian one at that?

The only thing I take on a relatively "blind faith" is the philosophy of absolute relativism.

I think not.

Sadistic already pointed out the obvious flaw.

I'll expand on my earlier supposition that you're 15;
The flaw was obvious, because the theory was simplistic. We're talking about something that has permeated society since its inception, and something with about as much diversity as our fingerprints. A "simple" answer to such a question is undoubtedly a bad one, BUT, one that you would normally find coming from......a 15 year old......

Plus, as most older people have realized, "Experience is the best teacher". Something youth simply don't have.

So really, what are your sources for this line of thought? If Newgrounds has taught me anything, it's taught me that your experiences with religion come from few sources, and none that really open any unexplored lines of thought. You have your parents, your Teenage Rebellion, your friends, and the internet......or as I like to call it, a "stupidity cocktail".

At 4/19/09 04:57 AM, ReiperX wrote:
Yeah but they vacated the property so they lost their claim.

That's like saying that we should give the American Indians their land back because we stole/swindeled it from them over a hundred years ago.

Your argument is Might makes Right?
"Golden Rule": He who makes the gold, makes the rules.

In any case, I feel the best solution for that particular area is to declare it all UN Occupied territory, removing control from both Israel and Palestine. Kids fighting over the cookie jar, best solution: Have mommy take it away. Now NEITHER gets the cookie jar.

It's more of an outrage than anything when you think about it. All that money that could have been sunk into scientific research, squandered on the vanity of the church and the kings.

Well like some things, time seems to have taken the edge off that insult.
The 7 wonders of the ancient world were built under the same principles.

Some of them overlap on both of those outrages, like the Pyramid and Mausoleum. Both religious and royal vanity at work there.....

I think most people are generally more impressed with the workmanship of these things given their circumstances than the context surrounding their invention.

I have zero respect to the assholes who constantly are in my face with their world-view. There are two things that a conversation over this always preclude: They're right, I'm wrong. The two most fucking pointless ways to start a "conversation" in the known world. Let's be honest, anyone who even wants to "discuss" this shit isn't in it for anything other than a lecture.

Being told why I should or should not do by some smug cunt who has never met me? I'm one of those weird people who believe most, if not all things in human life, are relative. Our health, our views, our perspectives. No two eyewitnesses ever agree, and here I am being lectured about why I'm wrong, and how some other asshole's gonna help me by giving the "right" answer?

Piss off, I don't have the time sir. I don't have the time to explain to you how presuming you know the answer to a 1.) Irrelevant question and 2.) A person you have no information on will somehow "save" me......

You wanna save me? Lecture me on the dangers of credit card debt, not this bullshit stance on the supernatural.

At 4/14/09 09:56 AM, Aughiris wrote: Atheists will never be deluded.
Theists will never get their heads out of their asses.

Why try to convince eachother?

By the nature of this broad sweeping generalization, I'm guessing you're 15 and Atheist.

Because see I always feel the need to divide that category; there are some fairly intelligent atheists on here that will engage in a resppectable conversation with you, on a fairly wide range of topics no less. These people I've found are generally 20+ years of age, or in some cases, 30+.

The other half are all 15, fairly stupid, generalizing, and think they're god's gift to debate; ironic considering their choice of philosophic stance, to be sure. But most consistently, they make very broad comments that don't really hold up when faced with any sort of scruitiny. Things are very black and white for them. Not really surprising, because broad statements only encompass things on a broad scale, and when looking at things more carefully and specifically, one always finds "exceptions to the rule". In the case of the 15 year old Rebel Atheist, however, the exceptions tend to outweigh the rule itself, which is usually a good indication the rule is false.

But chances are it's just easier to show "exceptions", because fuck all if anyone ever bothered to admit a mistake on Newgrounds.......

There's a joke in this thread somewhere....

like "How many atheists does it take to define 'atheism'?" or some sort of parody of the "how many.......lightbulb" joke.

Gotta be. Because there's just no way for this thread to be dead serious when 20 or so people have repeated the exact same thing to the OP, and continue arguing over whether or not atheism can count as a "belief" or not......

the answer to the joke would be "One, and 423 more to parrot the same answer".

Israel has every right to exist.

1948: Israel is declared a country, but the Arabs living there

Do they somehow have any less right to exist?

At 3/28/09 08:01 PM, SimonIndigo wrote:

At 3/28/09 07:42 PM, StephanosGnomon wrote:

At 3/28/09 02:59 PM, SimonIndigo wrote: People don't realize that we've already found life on other planets.

Um, what?

Yeah, we have. We've found small life forms, such as bacterium in fossilized form on Mars. I guess you can't call that 'life' but it was once life. It still proves that it is a definite possibility.

You are referring to this, which is generally the evidence people put forth when talking about life on Mars; the microbacteria they found fossilized.

Ironically I was in DC as a kid visiting the Smithsonian and was interviewed by some local news agency asking kids what "life on Mars" might look like. I never got on TV, they ended up choosing some kid cuter than me to talk about green tentacles and 18 fingers or some shit.

I love the way you ignored everything I wrote to make an attack. I love the way you ignored the facts, ignored the argument, ignored the link, and ignored the reply.

all it would take is for you to read that link.

You'd know exactly what I mean, everything would become clear. 5 minutes of your time, could save 20 minutes of tying.

I'm not the only one who tells you these things. I'm not the only one who's informed you you've used a word inappropriately. I'm not the only one to bring this to your attention, and yet, you repeat doing it.

But I guess ignoring things that don't fit your view is how you live your life poxpower. You're not here to debate, learn, or educate anyone, you're here to troll, cause havok, and generally be an annoyance.

Maybe next time I'll just draw a doodle, that way it'd be in a language you understand.

At 3/13/09 08:09 PM, Elfer wrote:
I think they're probably both closely linked to skepticism. People who don't believe things that can't be proven to them make good scientists.

Agree. Having a skeptical mind and desiring to find out the truth is a compelling factor that makes people scientists. It's also a compelling factor that makes people atheists.

Perhaps then skepticism is a cause of atheism.

I might also suspect a strong desire in academics is at least correlated to atheism, since in terms of its presentation, atheism seems a lot more "academic" than any religion.

Strong desire in academics is certainly a cause of one becoming a scientist, so perhaps the correlation holds true for atheism as well.

At 3/13/09 08:09 AM, Drakim wrote:

At 3/13/09 08:00 AM, poxpower wrote: And being a scientist causes atheism, not the other way around. Being an atheist doesn't really cause anything that I know of.

I do~

Lower teen pregnancy and divorce rate. :p

Do you get what I'm saying Drakim? I need a 3rd party here. Make sure what I'm saying is coherent, and it's just Pox who doesn't get it. Otherwise I need to rephrase things if I'm not making sense to anyone.

I'm saying science and atheism are positively correlated.
I'm also saying there is no stronger causal relationship between the two.

I'm using the definitions of correlation and causation as used by science.
Science cannot be a "cause" of atheism using these definitions, because learning science and becoming a scientist doesn't automatically mean one becomes an atheist. There are other variables in play.

The example I use to show cause is water and temperature.
When no other variables are in play, heat will cause water to evaporate, and cold will cause it to freeze. It happens every time, no matter how many times you do the experiment. Just like gravity; it happens every single time, 100%, always.

Becoming a scientist does not mean one becomes atheist though. It does NOT happen every time.
It may be as high as 95%, but the other 5% shows that there are other unseen variables. This means science cannot be shown to cause atheism, until those other factors (extraneous variables) are removed. There must be other variables that account for atheism, and until those are removed, it cannot be said that science is a cause, because we don't know how those other factors are influencing the situation.

People choose science as a career for various reasons. Those reasons that compel people to don white lab coats may also be the same reasons people subsequently become atheists. Maybe it's elitism. Scientists are elite in their fields, and atheists are constantly boasting of having more brains than theists, so perhaps elitism is a cause of atheism, and of people becoming scientists.

So far it's "well I don't think so because...huh... I doubt it". You even admit to not knowing what could convince you otherwise.

Remove the extraneous variables.

Show me that when nothing else can be considered, scientists become atheists.

I'm not asking for the causes of atheism. I'm asking you to prove science causes atheism.
BIG difference.

Account for the times that scientists DON'T become atheist, and show that when those variables are removed, scientists will become atheists 100% of the time.

Just like how heat causes water to evaporate 100% of the time.

That's what "cause", the SCIENTIFIC TERM, means.

So prove your own argument, and stop proving mine.....as you so often do.....

What does this mean for your theory? Why are there suddenly more people with the "traits to be atheist" with also happens to be the "traits to be a scientist"??

My theory is that they were positively correlated. So....it helps it.
See? This is exactly what I'm talking about.

You use terms that you don't understand. I use them correctly, and then somehow you think something like this would HURT my argument?
This AIDS my argument genius.

Positive correlation.
# of people who are scientifically educated goes up--># of atheists goes up.

I'll tell you: scientific education.

Still not causal.
Course, this all has to do with the fact that you don't understand the difference between correlation and causation.

You know, those SCIENTIFIC words and SCIENTIFIC definiions you've been throwing around randomly.....