Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 9/15/06 06:11 PM, Imperator wrote: I think a lot less decisions would be based on any sort of religious conviction should they all turn atheist overnight.

Hah. Well fair enough.

Still, I don't think the world would be that much worse if every political leader were an atheist.

At 9/15/06 05:56 PM, Imperator wrote:

Why would it make any difference if they were atheists?

Because then they wouldn't be afraid of getting punished by a Higher Authority, namely God.

If they see themselves as the top of the food chain, they'll act accordingly.

I can what you're getting at, but that's quite naive. Many top politicians use religion as their very excuse to be immoral.

At 9/15/06 05:31 PM, Imperator wrote:

At 9/15/06 05:27 PM, pretentious-asshat wrote: Yes, because atheism is inherently immoral.

No, because politicians are inherently immoral.

Why would it make any difference if they were atheists?

What the hell is wrong with you?

My mother didn't hug me enough as a child. :(

Put it away

At 9/15/06 05:24 PM, Imperator wrote: That's an easy question. They'd realize that there would be no punishments for their deeds, consolidate all the power possible, and fuck over everyone who stood in their way of corruption and destruction.

Yes, because atheism is inherently immoral.

What the hell is wrong with you?

He should not be doing that. The curriculum is manufactured is such a way that if you don't stick to the syllabus for every lesson, the students won't be able to learn everything required for the next exam. Especially considering the fact that if you, the teacher, claim something that is in direct contrast to the content that will appear on the exam you are merely slowing down and, in some cases, confusing the students.

This is the case in the UK at any rate, I'm assuming it's the same in the USA.

The social importance of religion is significant. You will never make the masses lose hope for something better.

Global warming is a natural phenomena which is CONTRIBUTED TO by humans.

Essentially, the human race is hardly helping.

At 9/11/06 09:27 PM, Truthiness wrote: I can't go on unless I hear his wisdom.

Does he have AIM?

At 9/10/06 06:47 PM, The-Stink wrote: Geez do you not know how to use proper grammar.

My grammar is fine.

Doesn't it hurt you more when you try mirror my own grammar?

"Doesn't it hurt me more when I try mirror your own grammar"...

Could you possibly phrase that again? It looks like yet another statement that makes no sense.

You are clutching for straws.

Straws?

Yes; straws. It's a saying.

Furthermore, "That does not involve actual event" is bad English as well.

So is: "Furthermore, "That does not involve actual event" is bad English as well."

If so, it can only be by a technicality. The meaning is still clear. The phrase, "That does not imply to actual events" doesn't have an even remotely clear meaning. Hence, I picked on it.

Your grammar is atrocious than my own.

Yeah, my grammar is really atrocious than your own. Funnily enough, that sentence doesn't make sense either.

Meaningless trolling.

Whiny little munchkin.

Of course I knew

Sure.. took you long enough.

but you insist I have to cite a source for every little thing I say.

Welcome to newgrounds and hope you enjoy your stay.

Ramble ramble

So my source? Dictionary.com. Fucking hypocrite.

Wow that sure was a lot of bad grammar.

Yet the meaning was still clear.

Apparently so, but it still stands you still can't use the word properly in a sentence.

I can certainly construct a more correct sentence than you can.

No, I'm afraid you can't.

Yeppideedoodah Grammar Nazi-boy.

You bore me.

Wow...and yet that sentence still doesn't make sense.

Actually that isn't a sentence. It's a quoted statement.

Needless nitpicking. But if you insist, the quoted statement doesn't make sense, and if you were to make it into a sentence, it still wouldn't make sense. There. Happy?

Yes you do make meaningless chitchat.

Wow, and here we are in the children's playground. That's pretty much "I know you are but what am I" logic. How pathetic.

Did anyone told you that your grammar is atrocious.

Well, don't avoid the issue or anything. That sure would shoot down your credibility and apparent argumentative skills. And actually, you're the first.

Does it look like I am admiting such ludicrous?

Yet another sentence that doesn't make sence...ludicrous is an adjective, moronjuice.

Hahaha. Ha. Hypocrite.

Hahaha that is what you are.

Blabla

You're an imbecile.

You can't pose a decent argument for shit.

At 9/10/06 06:07 PM, The-Stink wrote: Synonyms of imply: mean, entail, involve.

Maybe it would hurt your brain less if I said "That does not involve actual event."

So..."That does not mean to actual events"
"That does not entail to actual events"
"That does not involve to actual events"

You are clutching for straws. Furthermore, "That does not involve actual event" is bad English as well.

First definition of imply at Dictionary.com:

Wow you have to go and look up what imply means, because you don't know?

Meaningless trolling. Of course I knew, but you insist I have to cite a source for every little thing I say. So my source? Dictionary.com. Fucking hypocrite.

Already knew that

Apparently so, but it still stands you still can't use the word properly in a sentence.

but thanks for taking the time to find that out for yourself.

Yeah....

Actually it would go, "That does not suggest without being explicitly stated to actual events."

Wow...and yet that sentence still doesn't make sense.

You only use one word from that whole bit and furthermore it isn't a synonym to what I was saying. It's like saying mature for huge. Is huge a synonym for big, is mature a synonym for big, but is huge mature for huge? You are a dumbass.

Meaningless bantering.

Suggest is not a synonym for what I was implying with the word, imply.

O rly?

That is because you don't know how to paraphrase other people's work, dumbass.

So you admit the sentences you wrote made no sense?

I have proven no point of yours

If you say so, but it seems like you are just living in your fantasy world.

Hahaha. Ha. Hypocrite.

Sure I have, buddy boy, keep telling yourself that.

You're laughable.

At 9/10/06 11:35 AM, The-Stink wrote:

At 9/10/06 07:29 AM, pretentious_asshat wrote: You know what imply means yet cannot use the word correctly in a sentence?

Oh so you really don't know what imply means, thanks for proving my point.

Your sentence was: "That does not imply to actual events".

First definition of imply at Dictionary.com:

to indicate or suggest without being explicitly stated

So what you were saying was "that does not suggest to actual events". As you can clearly see, this sentence has no bearing on grammar whatsoever. I have proven no point of yours, you've just proven yourself to be a complete total retard.

At 9/9/06 12:12 AM, The-Stink wrote:

At 9/8/06 01:48 PM, pretentious_asshat wrote:
Oh, I have a hard time making an actual statement, Mr. "that does not imply to actual events"? Do you even know what imply means?

Oh YES I know what imply means. Do you?

You know what imply means yet cannot use the word correctly in a sentence?

Hahaha

ahahaha

Good topic.

At 9/7/06 09:38 PM, Anti_Noob wrote:

At 9/7/06 11:23 AM, pretentious_asshat wrote: So in other words, you have have no concept of grammar whatsoever?

Nope, but it does seem like you have a hard time making an actual statement.

Oh, I have a hard time making an actual statement, Mr. "that does not imply to actual events"? Do you even know what imply means?

At 9/7/06 01:37 PM, BanditByte wrote:

At 9/5/06 01:25 AM, Sachilla wrote: Aw. :/

I'm female, bisexual and have a girfriend.

...And I'd really like to get married one day. *_*

That's why you stay in that cesspool of immorality known as Europe in order to fulfill sexual deviance without condemnation.

Wow what a moron haha.

At 9/5/06 05:23 PM, Anti_Noob wrote:

At 9/4/06 01:56 PM, pretentious_asshat wrote: http://www.cassiopae..ass/lever-effect.htm

Yeah and? That really doesn't imply to every matter. Nor does it imply to actual events.

So in other words, you have have no concept of grammar whatsoever?

At 9/5/06 10:56 PM, ThunderboltLegion wrote:

So as a whole picture, the Christian solution to the Problem of Evil seems incoherent."

Or perhaps you have simply made an error in your attempt to understand something that goes beyond the narrow humanist concepts and definitions for existence.

Those are not...my words. I just thought it'd be a good discussion point.

At 9/5/06 02:50 PM, JMHX wrote: Either God exists, or he doesn't.

Ignosticism is by far the best theological standpoint to have.

At 9/5/06 06:04 AM, skullketon wrote: Heh heh, sting ray.

Hm.

At 9/4/06 08:53 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote: Free will.

God doesn't allow evil, we choose it.

"If God is omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenificent, how can there be suffering in the world?
This topic has been dealt with at length by philosophers and theologians and is still debated on blogs and message boards to this day. What really makes me curious is this:
What is it that makes people find the argument that suffering is a result of us having free will convincing?
I know that all the predicates such as omnipotence have limitations such as avoidance of logical contradictions. It does not follow from this, however, that the world we see is the best of all possible worlds given those necessary parameters.
It just does not seem credible, whether you take this metaphorically or not, that God should create a universe bounded by the categories of time and matter in order for it to be a habitat for humans. Further why, foreseeing every move that the feckless, weak willed and covetous creatures would make, He nonetheless created them only to be outraged by their sin? The notion that He would then sacrifice part of Himself to Himself in order to atone for sins which are breaches of moral absolutes that He encoded into the universe in the first place is counter-intuitive. All this so that despite a lack of good evidence for His existence, we, as rational beings could have the free will to chose to have a relationship with Him via his sacrificed son? Why is the concept of atonement morally acceptable anyway? How does somebody else's sacrifice influence the moral status of what I have done? Nor does the suffering seem related in a simple way to free will and sin. Malaria, earthquakes and the like are morally indiscriminate, they kill innocents and guilty alike. The remark that we are all sinners after the 'fall' seems an outdated and morally abhorrent concept. Why did God not create us to enjoy eternal bliss, without the wish or predisposition to do evil? Would any loss of free will that this would entail be a bad thing? I think not.
So as a whole picture, the Christian solution to the Problem of Evil seems incoherent." --Keith Phillips

Anyone have a response to this?

At 9/4/06 08:02 AM, Anti_Noob wrote: You know I once had thought that there were no extraterrestrials or they wouldn't spend their time coming here. Then I met one in person and boy did that change my perspective and was the best sex I've ever had.

What did the alien look like?

http://www.cassiopae..ass/lever-effect.htm

At 9/4/06 09:00 AM, Confusion_ray wrote:

Confusion ray...

Was that like a Pokemon attack or something?

At 9/4/06 09:11 AM, Anti_Noob wrote:

At 9/4/06 09:06 AM, pretentious_asshat wrote:
I still beg to differ.

Well at least I got you begging.

...

Right.

At 9/4/06 08:47 AM, Anti_Noob wrote:

At 9/4/06 07:30 AM, pretentious_asshat wrote:

Your understanding skills suck.

I beg to differ.

He's right you know... they do suck.

I still beg to differ.

At 9/4/06 04:53 AM, Rekhyt wrote: Its all shit. All of it.

How was Jesus white in a really hot country where everyone was black?

He wasn't white, his skin would have been an olive colour.

How did Adam and Eve even know HOW to have kids if they were the first humans?

Instinct.

How did Adam and Eve's kids have kids if they were both boys?

I'm fairly sure they had other kids.

How the fuck was the Virgin Mary still a Virgin if she was pregnant?

It's called a metaphor.

None of it makes sense. Its all bullcrap.

Your contradictions sucked. Proof? A non-Christian could respond to them,

So?

So it wasn't a smug butthole statement that explains the meaning of life.

Your point being?

ONE of those links are from THIS YEAR 2-0-0-6! So in fact its getting mysterious bit by bit.

I had another look at the sources you cited. The only one from 2006 is the Google Earth one, and since I'm sure you've read the Wikipedia article, you should know that the craters shown are from artillery practise during WWII, so not a recent event at all. Convenient for you, is it not?

Your understanding skills suck.

I beg to differ.

THOSE links showed you the PEOPLES' opinions, newsarticles that showed Area-51 is getting more mysterious, was mysterious, and that RUMORS are flying around WHY the government is hiding it from the people! SO it makes it MORE mysterious

I am going to give you the serious benefit of the doubt here (which you shouldn't really get, considering you are the one that has the incentive to lie and have already said misleading things about your sources) and assume that you are correct about that source directly saying that it is mysterious. It is still, in my opinion, not that mysterious, and I've already justified this opinion. I suppose it could be seen as mysterious if you hadn't already been severely exposed to just how much the US government (and indeed, governments in general) lie, but again I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you aren't quite that ignorant. So I still don't see how you can consider Area-51 to be that mysterious.

I'm fully aware of why governments lie, and that's irrelevant.

I doubt it.

Why?

First off you said that 'every physicist in existence knows' and your changing the subject.

You seem to think that the "you're changing the topic" card will work in every part of every argument, presumably when you don't have a refutation to the point that was just made.

'every physicist in existence knows' - specifically I said "I don't know how they'd be able to keep every particle physicist in existence from telling anyone". So that's every "particle physicist" rather than just "physicist" and "from telling anyone" rather than the obligatory "knows". I suppose that's a forgivable misinterpretation, though the way you put it could be somewhat misleading. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt (AGAIN) and say that your intentions were not to mislead, but that you made a simple mistake.

But you're missing the point. I'm not changing the subject, since my original point was:

"It really wouldn't suprise me if aircraft as advanced as that which you describe were being built in Area-51, since governments do have a history of pathologically lying about, well, everything, even if that is current scientific progress. Though I admit I don't know how they'd be able to keep every particle physicist in existence from telling anyone about how advanced current physics are."

Okay, maybe not "every" particle physicist. But still, we are discussing how, exactly, the US government would go about keeping every particle physicist in the field of quantum / particle transportation to actively lie to everyone about the fact that particle physics, is, in fact, so advanced that it's possible to transport a huge aircraft instantaneously to another, probably rather far away, location. This logical fallacy is a severe contradiction in a lot of conspiracy theories, including the ones involving Area-51. The only possible way to get out of it is if you claim that either it's possible for the government to shut up a huge number of scientists, or that every scientist that good is made to work for Area-51 or, perhaps, a similar base. Both of these claims are obviously bollocks, so I'd like to see you dig your way out of this patch.

'Skimmed' it? Have you even READ every last word instead of missing a sentence or two? If you have INDEED read it, then notice that almost all of your points were made.

If you insist...I really don't care. Are you trying to use a psychological tactic to keep me from arguing or something?

YOU try to be civil!?

Once I met a guy who worked at Area-51.
'Bullshit you did'

Recognize the words o' civil one? You know have you ever noticed that you,your self had reduced to that level your talking about. Its a shame not everyone takes their own advice.

You'll notice that "bullshit you did" is not a personal attack by any stretch of the imagination. It may not be the most elegant way of saying "I don't believe you", but it's aon a quite a different level of offence to "you're retarded". That was the only quote you took from mine and Anti_Noob's debate, so why specifically that part? Not only did it contribute nothing, but it also introduced argumentative logical fallacies into what was a perfectly civil debate.

EXACTLY what I meant! And those didprove what i was saying.

You haven't offered any explanations as to why as of yet.

YOUR AVOIDING IT AGAIN O' civilized one! Your changing the subject and yes i read your latest reply AND IN THIS REPLY I have typed WHY it was mysterious and IS getting weirder AND mysterious, and you dont admit that Area-51 HAS been mysterious for quite a while BUT instead you have to change the sbject to avoid it.

You're not making the slightest bit of sense. You claim that I'm avoiding the question, yet I have already answered it, and I've already said where my response is. If anything, you're avoiding my response with argumentative fallacies (such as "you're avoiding the issue, teh lol" when I am clearly not). I'd even type my response again here to keep you from avoiding it, but I don't have enough characters left to do so.

Admit it, ether how many smug remarks,sources you have, almost everyone on the BBS will agree THAT Area-51 WAS MYSTERIOUS and is getting a little bit mysterious!

Appeal to majority is a logical fallacy. Almost everyone on the BBS? O rly? Do you have a statistical analysis to back this up? How about arguing for yourself for once?

Even Wikipedia says it has been mysterious for quite a while on the discussion page!

Well

I very much doubt your even smarter than one of the idiotic wikipedia writers.

Yet another personal attack.

Iam tired of arguing with you because its trying to talk to a idiot with no sense of anything.

Meaningless hypocritical personal attack.

At 9/3/06 04:02 PM, Pwnage_In_A_Can wrote: Wow, I'm a bit surprised no one's actually tried to refute my points on the last page.

I looked on the last page. You don't seem to have made any significant points at all.

Are you talking about throughout the topic by any chance?

At 9/2/06 11:19 AM, BanditByte wrote: Many of you may know who "ELF" is, while some of you have never of heard of them. ELF is an acronym for Earth Liberation Front: basically they're a bunch of pinko-commie cocksuckers.

"pink-commie cocksuckers"...

Truly your argument is flawless.

At 10/17/04 08:32 PM, The_Last_Cynic wrote: I don't think God left, I think he just stopped intervining, and not because of us, but if you read through the old testament you relize whenever he has, it didn't lead to much good, so he wanted to see what we could figure out on our own.

So you're a firm believer in the clockmaker hypothesis?