Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

http://www.guardian...y/0,,1928965,00.html

At 10/23/06 05:55 PM, Grammer wrote: If I had faith faith my girlfriend was going to make it to to movies on time, and I got a phone call from her saying that she would, would this circumstancial evidence diminish my faith that she's going to make it?

You said it yourself, there are multiple definitions of faith. _original_ is clearly referring to the "belief that is not based on proof" definition. Here, you are referring to the "confidence or trust is another person or thing" definition.

The idea of religion (or most religions) is you believe in the deity described in the holy texts without proof. Hence, the whole idea that God is testing humans' faith, where the reward is the kingdom of heaven.

It implies that two wrongs make a right.

I can't help but notice, jwelch, that much of the "transitional debunking" that Kirk Cameron does in the video you provided was a direct quote of Jack Chick's Big Daddy.

Do you not think for a second that your sources are not only biased, but inaccurate?

At 10/21/06 09:17 PM, jlwelch wrote: So...do you hate other races? Are you an evolutionist?

You are blatantly a troll. However:

http://www.abarnett...uk/atheism/race.html

Just to clear up any misconceptions.

At 10/20/06 11:33 AM, Grammer wrote:

At 10/20/06 11:26 AM, Peter-II wrote:

If we wanted oil we could've just bought it, instead of starting a $400 bil war.

Yes, but either way, it's better if the oil is secured now.

The costs of the war severely outweigh any money we are earning from any oil.

www.costofwar.com

I didn't even click your link, because I'm aware of this. However, it is still a good idea for the Americans to secure it while they can. From their point of view, at least.

You don't start a war for oil. That makes absolutely no sense economically.

I don't see why. You have to fight over something.

And as I said, one of the factors among many.

Think of the 9/11 attacks as being an opportunity opening up.

Or I could look at it as a horrid tragedy which took thousands of lives, which I find to be less perverse.

Appeal to emotion argument. Totally irrelevant.

Have you checked Bush's approval ratings? Have you checked the Iraq war's approval ratings. The Iraq war isn't doign well in the court of public opinion.

Yes, I know. I didn't say the war would give Bush approval ratings. He was voted in again, though.

At 10/20/06 08:57 PM, jlwelch wrote:

At 10/20/06 05:37 PM, Peter-II wrote:

At 10/20/06 05:17 PM, ImmoralLibertarian wrote: No one can be that retarded. Devout or not.

I used to think so too. Then I saw this.

I am not retarded and than man is a hero beyond a shadow of a doubt.

You're a good troll, actually.

At 10/20/06 05:17 PM, ImmoralLibertarian wrote: No one can be that retarded. Devout or not.

I used to think so too. Then I saw this.

At 10/20/06 11:55 AM, Grammer wrote:

At 10/20/06 11:38 AM, Peter-II wrote: Are any of you actually going to refute the article, or there a "tl;dr" mentality here?

I can't refute his opinion, it's his opinion. If he wants to believe conservatives can't govern, then fine. He's wrong, but hey it's just an opinion.

I will admit that refute was a bad way of putting it. However, you are still capable of responding. This forum is dedicated to debate after all.

de'bate [di-beyt]
noun
1. a discussion, as of a public question in an assembly, involving opposing viewpoints

At 10/20/06 11:59 AM, cheerleader87 wrote: hey! to all those people out there that are against abortion, i support you and praise your living. but to all those who are for abortion, how would you feel if your mother decided to kill you, you wouldn't be living here today!!

You are correct, but so what?

Are any of you actually going to refute the article, or there a "tl;dr" mentality here?

At 10/20/06 10:09 AM, Grammer wrote:

At 10/18/06 05:42 PM, Peter-II wrote: --Getting at middle-Eastern oil reserves

If we wanted oil we could've just bought it, instead of starting a $400 bil war.

Yes, but either way, it's better if the oil is secured now. Think of the 9/11 attacks as being an opportunity opening up.

--Allow Republican party to be voted in again

And yet the Iraq issue is hurting the Bush admin, hmm.

That is avoiding the issue. The Republican party was voted in again, due to the group mentality which comes with a war.

Wow, clear to see you know shit all about philosophy.

Oil is just one of the factors. It's really not as clear-cut as the troops going in for oil OR to set up a brilliant democracy which will infinitely benefit the Iraqis for evermore.

Reasons for going to war:

--Remove Saddam from power
--Setting up pro-American government
--Getting at middle-Eastern oil reserves
--Allow Republican party to be voted in again

Like I say, not that clear cut. There was no "single" reason.

At 10/15/06 08:22 PM, BanditByte wrote: The impression I've gotten so far is everyone in this thread is ignorant as all hell.

Well, do elaborate.

At 10/15/06 05:55 PM, the-man-who-knew wrote:

At 10/15/06 02:36 PM, nickonum1 wrote: God created two monkeys Adam and Eve who evolved! that is what happened i think.

My friend you shouldnt breed. You might disrupt the gene pool

It'd be like an infection in the human genestock.

At 10/15/06 11:24 AM, zero-gravity wrote: IM GOING TO BREAK IT DOWN EASY FOR YOU IDIOTS

Your effort is appreciated. However, I've tried that kind of thing before, and believe me, creationists are damned impossible to shut up. So you didn't kill any debate.

At 10/14/06 11:46 PM, jlwelch wrote:

NDEs are a direct result of lack of oxygen, not almighty God speaking to you. You lose.

At 10/14/06 04:23 PM, da-pope wrote:

At 10/14/06 03:17 PM, Peter-II wrote: Thing is, the guy did it on purpose.

Isn't that a foul or something?

... Are you serious?
Have you ever heard of Hockey?

Yes, and yes

"Why don't you ask nicely?"

What a legend.

Thing is, the guy did it on purpose.

Isn't that a foul or something?

At 10/14/06 02:19 PM, o-r-i-g-i-n-a-l wrote:

At 10/14/06 09:12 AM, MyNameRocks wrote: I've said it before and I'll say it again (this time in caps) CREATIONISM IS NOT THAT DIFFENENT THAN EVOLUTION! It's only peoples closemindedness that make it that way.

Then I must be pretty closed minded, because as far as I can see, natural (or guided) biological change over billions of years seems pretty different to god making the world and all the creatures in it in 6 days.

I think what he was trying to say was that the creation hymn of Genesis and a more scientific perspective on the universe are not mutually exclusive, in which case that'd be a rather bad way of putting it. I wouldn't put it past him though. Plus, that is actually a rather sensible argument, if justified well.

At 10/14/06 01:16 AM, jlwelch wrote: The science and logic of evolution is flawed as evidenced in my sources, and what better source than the Bible for debate? It is where we came from, who we are, how we were created. And most importantly, it is the Word of God!

Oh for fuck's sake...

What the hell is it with creationists claiming they know more than the entire god damn scientific community? Every flaw you can think of, every little contradiction in every little branch of science that opposes your religious dogma has already been thought of, written about - by real scientists - and refuted. Get it into your head - YOU KNOW NOTHING OF BIOLOGY LIKE PALEOANTRHOPOLIGISTS DO.

For instance, one of your sources claimed that evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics. However, I have not yet heard a remotely decent explanation to this as of yet. The second law states "The entropy of an isolated system not at equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value". This does NOT apply to evolution in any way, shape or form, believe it or not. Every once in a while you'll hear something like "but evolution claims that something gets more complex over time, which is impossible because entropy is something getting less complex over time, teh lol". What? What?!!?! WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT, YOU INEPT DOGMATISED, INFECTED WITH THE PANDEMIC OF PSEUDOSCIENCE RETARDS??? LIFE IS NOT A FUCKING ISOLATED SYSTEM, SO SHUT THE FUCK UP ALREADY

The richest thing is by far the fact that these kind of people would normally take little to no interest in science, yet when a science opposed their religious dogma, suddenly they have a PhD in Biology and can parrot bullshit like "the bombardier beetle disproves evolution". And why? Because a propaganda website says so. Real facts? Do you even know what facts are jwelch?

So tell me, creationists. Why would the entire scientific community lie about something like evolution? Because they hate God? Oh please...

For your sake, jwelch, I hope you're just a troll. Because I genuinely feel sorry for you if you're that fucking ignorant.

At 10/13/06 07:20 PM, MoonClawk wrote:

At 10/13/06 07:17 PM, Peter-II wrote:

At 10/13/06 07:09 PM, MoonClawk wrote: I don't believe in Evolution either. We evolved from monkeys, ridiculous, just ridiculous.

It's incredible how few people in this forum actually understand evolution.

Oh no I understand. I just think the theory, hence the word theory of evolution in itself, is just flawed and ridiculous.

You can't possibly understand the theory of evolution because you think humans evolved from monkeys.

You also fail to understand the meaning of something being a theory. A theory isn't something that's just speculated. A theory, in terms of science, has been empirically observed and concluded to be (at the very least, essentially) established fact. Hence the theory of gravity and atomic theory

At 10/13/06 07:09 PM, MoonClawk wrote: I don't believe in Evolution either. We evolved from monkeys, ridiculous, just ridiculous.

It's incredible how few people in this forum actually understand evolution.

Economic Left/Right: -5.13
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.92

I expected to be more authoritarian, actually.

At 10/4/06 07:10 PM, Grammer wrote: The belief is a deity isn't irrational, either.

But I'm sure you already knew that.

But of course.

At 10/4/06 04:27 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

At 10/4/06 04:26 PM, Peter-II wrote:

At 10/4/06 04:19 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

He isn't in the same category as Freud, Atkins etc., yes. I wasn't really intentionally listing philosophers and scientists, just intelligent and fairly well known atheists.

And when talking about Atkins, are you meaning the dieticien.

I'm talking about the chemist, not the dietician.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Atkins

At 10/4/06 04:19 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote: Great writer, but does he really come to mind when thinking of philosphers and scientists.

He isn't in the same category as Freud, Atkins etc., yes. I wasn't really intentionally listing philosophers and scientists, just intelligent and fairly well known atheists.

At 10/4/06 01:29 PM, Integrity wrote:

At 10/4/06 11:53 AM, Peter-II wrote: You haven't a clue, have you?

Hmm, let me think about it for a second.

Apparently you didn't think about it at all.

All you did was make sweeping generations about "liberals" and "conservatives", needless to say making the conservative view look more rational. How does that relate to "Sex and the Bible"? How?!

So basically what you're saying is that the belief in God is unrealistic, I mean after all, you're so much smarter than Albert Einstien

Einstein believed in a nonpersonal god, and I am assuming from other posts you've made that you believe in the personal, Christian god...

So is your belief system more correct than Einstein's?

Galileo, Louie Pastuer, among others.

Right...

What the fuck are you talking about? Just because a renowned scientist believes in a deity doesn't make a belief in a deity more rational than a disbelief in a deity. But then again, you are so much smarter than Peter Atkins, Richard Feynman, Freud and Douglas Adams?