Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 9/25/07 10:39 AM, pieandeggs wrote: No, the theory was that everything was all consumed in a small amount of space, then, ona differnt theory, God said "Let there be light" and there was an explosion which caused all the planets and stars and galexies far apart. Why d you think that it is called the big BANG theory. You expect me to just go along with what u say because ur like 34 or 35? It aint workin

Are you a troll, or are you just ignorant? The big bang theory says nothing of the sort, read a book or something.

At 9/3/07 02:38 PM, kojama wrote: My point is that music has been and will continue be the driving factor of human civilation!

um, no, it isn't. It may be an integral part of our culture, but the driving factor of human civilisation? Gee, and there I was thinking it was something more along the lines of our social and societal instincts.

At 8/15/07 05:38 PM, Dre-Man wrote: Become a nihilite.

Who are you and what have you done with Dre-Man?

At 7/9/07 02:07 PM, TigerDemon wrote: To all those that this post pissed off: Your own medication is bitter is it not?

Jesus, you're posting the exact same paragraph again? What makes you think it's not going to be disappointingly unprofound and not at all meriting any discussion whatsoever this time?

I should start posting in this thread again (I got a new account), but I don't think I could say anything about the questions which my colleagues haven't already. So, I'll try something new.

Has anyone noticed that the Bible is written with a very satisfying amount of closure with respect to how it begins and ends? For example:

"In the beginning God created the Heavens and Earth" (Genesis 1:1)
"I saw a New Heaven and a New Earth" (Revelations 21:1)

"The gathering together of waters He called the Sea" (Genesis 1:10)
"And the Sea is no more" (Revelations 21:1)

"The darkness He called Night" (Genesis 1:5)
"There shall be no Night there" (Revelations 21:25)

"Cursed is the ground for your sake" (Genesis 3:17)
"There shall be no more curse" (Revelations 22:3)

Man's primeval home was by a river (Genesis 2:10)
Man's Eternal home will be beside a river (Revelations 22:1)

Does this then mean that the author of Revelations had access to Genesis? Or have I been looking too deeply into this?

At 7/1/07 02:05 PM, Ryuunosuke wrote: I never said it wasn't necessary.

Then that is what our disagreement stems from. You think that disagreement is an unambiguous derivative from a lack of human understanding, and I don't agree.

There is a difference between debates in politics and debates on religion. The debates in politics are never ending, yes, BUT that doesn't mean we don't understand because all political debates are on different topics and are eventually resolved. For debates on religion, they are all about the same thing, it validaty, and none of them have never been resolved

Not at all true. There are disagreements within religion and within nontheism; the disagreement doesn't necessarily have to be about the validity of the religion itself. For instance, there is a disagreement between Protestants and Catholics about whether or not respect should be paid to saints during or before / after prayer. Both sects are in agreement about the validity of the Bible.

Also, where did you get the idea that debates in politics are "eventually resolved"? Do you think the debate on abortion will ever be resolved? Which is more a moral debate than a political one, but my point still stands.

Exactly, and its the fact that we can't make any valid attempts that shows we can't understand or comprehend.

But people's perceptions of deities can be disproven. And we may not know whether or not a deity exists for sure, but we can prove that a deity isn't necessary to explain our existence and other things.

However, what can be disproven is people's perceptions of God.

How so?

Well for example, literalist Christians insist that Yahweh created the world in six days a few thousand years ago. This view has been disproven, as I'm sure you're aware of.

No, to adhere to a religion is not necessarily to understand, but to believe.

Perhaps I've approached this in the wrong way...faith by definition is contrary to reason.

Anyone who thinks they understand God and his workings is ignorant. But, that doesn't mean we don't understand him at all. We know that he is doing what is best for us and all that,

Tell me, how do you know that? And how do you defend your position that only some things are known about God "but not everything"? Surely everything about God is unknown, since he is beyond our understanding?

Nothing is known about the noumenal world; to claim "some" understanding of it to make things more convenient for yourself is foolish. I understand that it is your belief that your specific deity is the big leader of the universe, but you must accept that you do not, in fact, know anything for sure about your deity, and therefore whether or not it exists.

After all, I have already made the point that faith by definition runs contrary to reason.

its more of an inability to comprehend the WHY? and HOW?, those kind of things.

Refer to the argument above. Also, I apologise about the delayed reply.

At 7/1/07 01:17 PM, Ryuunosuke wrote: Just look at this post. It's obvious that religion and God are beyond human comprehension, or else we wouldn't have this whole "Science vs Religion" conflict.

It isn't necessary for something to be beyond our understanding in order to raise conflict. I don't think that there is a conflict between science and religion but some people argue it is that way.

The fact that we have this debate shows we do not understand it and can not comprehend it.

How so? People have debates about politics, is politics beyond our understanding?

If we did understand it or comprehend it, we woudn't have to try to prove/disprove its validaty.

Proof and disproof do not stem from a lack of understanding. Indeed, it's the opposite. The fact that we don't understand anything supernatural or even know if the supernatural exists means that we can't make any valid attempts to prove or disprove the existence of a deity.

However, what can be disproven is people's perceptions of God.

But, even more importantly: Your argument relies on the axiom that God cannot be understood. So why do you adhere to a religion? To do so is to claim at least some understanding of God.

At 6/25/07 05:21 AM, TigerDemon wrote: Ok look I get that some people like to deny the idea that there is a higer being out there even though the evidence that some higer power had to have a hand in the creation of this world stares them in the face daily.

Evidence? Could you provide an example of that which I couldn't shamelessly tear apart?

Sure go ahead and live life in a manner that I think is blind. However dont keep crying about how dumb those of us with faith are, about what evil religion has caused. For all the ills that religions have caused over time it is done more good. It gives hope and a meaning to life.

To meaning to life is to live it. Constantly hoping for something better devoids life of its meaning.

Because of religion many peoples lives have been turned around for the better. Also do you see any atheists feeding the poor or sheltering the homeless? Nope and ya dont see people taking care of others in the name of nothing do you?

Really?

So please atheists wake up and leave those of us that find meaning in something alone and go back to your blind hollow exsistance.

See, the ironic thing about your argument is the fact that you whine about atheists being insulting to theists and then accuse them of leading a "blind hollow existence". In my opinion, happiness and spiritual fulfillment don't come from basing your life around a possibly nonexistent hyperbeing, but from a state of relative freedom and using that freedom to your advantage. As an atheist I appreciate life for what it is rather than constantly hoping for something better, insisting that I am under the care of a religion-specific, personal god, and frankly, that's how I like it.

At 6/26/07 06:16 AM, leafbeast wrote: prove it...everybody is racist...just what degree aer you racist...im a bit racist...

I disagree that everybody is "a little racist". Just because you're a little racist doesn't mean everyone else is.

questions to ask yourself:

1.do you think all black people steal?

Um...no

2.do you always believe an asian to be chinese or japanese?

No, because they could be Pakistani or Indian. You can be Asian and not look oriental. Besides, that condition doesn't necessarily mean a person is racist, just geographically ignorant.

3.do you laugh at black jokes(even blacks laugh at black jokes)

Yes, but again, if somebody fulfills that conditions it doesn't necessarily make them racist. It just means they're laid back about the concept of race and are willing to have a laugh about it.

At 6/13/07 03:45 PM, UWDarDar17 wrote: Whether you agree with his decision or not, you have to admit that the topic of arguement is good.

I like his method of approaching the situation logically rather than just listing scientific evidence in favour of his argument. Unfortunately, however, I just can't stop myself from making comparisons between his argument and Pascal's wager

At 6/11/07 07:29 PM, AshfordGivens wrote: My path to god is too complex for any of you to understand. whats wrong with believing in all the religions at once just to be safe?

Because all religions (except Baha'i) claim exclusivity.

Theres nothing in the bible that says you can't do that.

"I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me" (John 14:6)

At 6/11/07 03:42 PM, AshfordGivens wrote: You do sound a bit cocky. my extra year on this planet makes me automaticlly smarter than you.

....

I also believe in all the other religions too such as shinto , buddism and islam. Just so i'm covered in the after life.

Yeah definitely an alt.

btw, can I join? My philosophical position is an intricate balance of agnosticism and atheism, so I think I qualify. I've always said a healthy dose of scepticism keeps the brain oiled, particularly regarding religion.

At 6/7/07 05:28 AM, Wikipedian wrote:

That's meant to be a quote, btw.

At 6/6/07 12:19 PM, JakeHero wrote: Nothing in that article that I read contradicts what I previously stated. If anything on the page does, feel free to post the quote and its section.

There are many who confess that while they believe like the Turks and the Jews that there is some sort of God and some sort of deity, yet with regard to Jesus Christ and to all that to which the doctrine of the Evangelists and the Apostles testify, they take all that to be fables and dreams.... I have heard that there are of this band those who call themselves Deists, an entirely new word, which they want to oppose to Atheist. For in that atheist signifies a person who is without God, they want to make it understood that they are not at all without God, since they certainly believe there is some sort of God, whom they even recognize as creator of heaven and earth, as do the Turks; but as for Jesus Christ, they only know that he is and hold nothing concerning him nor his doctrine.

At 6/6/07 10:04 AM, JakeHero wrote: Deists believe in the Christian God, but don't believe he is either omnipotent or omniscient.

Uh...where did you get that from?

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

At 6/5/07 07:09 AM, Zoraxe7 wrote: Have you people never have heard of Zoresterism? It is the worlds oldest monotheistic relligion and it still exsists in India and Iran.

Judaism and Hinduism both predate Zoroastrianism.

I don't think there's any doubt that THC only has indirect links with schizophrenia, that is, if those who have a family history of schizophrenia smoke it while their brain is developing, it's more likely they will develop schizophrenia in later life.

At 6/1/07 03:56 PM, Dante-Son-Of-Sparda wrote: Mike Stone is having sausage made from the rest of the animal. "We'll probably get 500 to 700 pounds," he said.

What a total waste. In order for a boar to get to that size it'd have to be incredibly old, and incredibly old pigs never taste good. I'm all for meat-eating, but they basically just killed this hog for no reason. It's nothing to be proud of, IMO

At 5/31/07 05:18 PM, Tal-con wrote: Hahahahah, a pure gem. Pity it'd be irresponsible to use the sliced quote against him.

Meh, your current quote does fine as far as I can tell.

At 5/30/07 08:51 PM, Memorize wrote: You know, I could've sworn that the last time I went to biology class, that my book stated "water first".

That's about it, but water didn't come before the sun. Hell, the earth didn't come before the sun.

At 5/30/07 07:36 PM, Altarus wrote: According to dictionary.com, my definition of day is perfectly valid, and I can also provide examples of instances in the Bible where day refers to a long period of time and examples from literature and other places where this is the case.

According to dictionary.com, your definition of day is perfectly invalid. The closest we get to your definition of day is:

10. Often, days. a particular time or period: the present day; in days of old.

The term day is ambiguous but the way it is used in Genesis 1 is not in the same context as above. But far more importantly, Genesis 1 doesn't get the order right. For instance, on day one, God creates water and light before the sun, while the earth is still "without form, and void". Further, on day five, God creates birds and sea animals before land animals, in total defiance of the fossil record.

At 5/30/07 08:00 PM, Criticcorner wrote: Thus, all reliogions are bullshit.

How profound

At 5/30/07 06:34 PM, Ravariel wrote: And yet here you are with the same claim.

Confirmation bias, self deception and selective thinking is to be expected from creationists, even if they approach other debates in a more logical manner. Such is the nature of religious fundamentalism.

At 5/26/07 07:28 PM, stafffighter wrote: "I'm not saying people who beleive in evolution aren't moral. I'm saying they have no logical reason to be moral"

I think it says a lot about these people think that if they didn't believe in creationism, they'd have no basis to be moral.

At 5/26/07 07:05 PM, Sekhem wrote: Hey guys, get your dicks out of your physics textbooks and realize that God is never referred to as a "sentient" being (not in the original judeo-christian scriptures at least, some translations are flawed greatly)

Source? Yahweh in the Old Testament has a number of very human features (such as enough anger to flood the whole earth thereby killing most of its inhabitants) and at certain points becomes an epiphany (the time when he sits down and has a meal with Abraham and an angel, for instance), which implies a number of other human features, such as self-awareness (which you seem to have mixed up with sentience, which is something else). What you're essentially making the argument for is that the original Biblical texts have been misinterpreted so significantly that the basis for most of the stories involved in it as well as most of its core principles that we know of today are completely wrong, as much of the New Testament and Old Testament rely on god being self-aware; for example, if he weren't self-aware, he wouldn't at all be a personal deity, which is what the Christian god is meant to be.

and very well could be referring to energy the thing our very universe thrives on. I mean could our universe exist without this primordial energy, no. Therefore Amontillado is right

I don't see how that follows, especially considering your premise is incorrect. Going by the assumption that the universe couldn't exist without "this primordial energy" (which is in itself probably incorrect and I could probably challenge it if I knew a little more about physics), a lot more steps need to be taken before the conclusion is made that the universe was created by the rather specific, Judeo-Christian deity.

and all of you idiots in this thread claiming otherwise seem to know little to nothing about Theology and a lot about Physics,

As opposed to what? Knowing next to nothing about either? I'm looking your way.

maybe you should research both sides before you voice your uninformed opinions on this matter.

Maybe you should research either side before you spout nonsensical bullshit. Considering how some of the posts above yours compare to the one you just made, you have no right to waltz in like some wise almighty sage who strikes down all the uninformed fools (that is, the people who disagree with you) into their rightful place.

I disagree. I suspect the only people who will visit it will be the kind of people who like the idea of Adam and Eve coexisting with the dinosaurs and fossils being planted by the devil to deter scientists away from The Truth with their evil, evil empirical observation. Thankfully, most people aren't like that and I expect civilisation as we know it will continue to function as normal.

At 5/26/07 12:36 AM, Dr-Worm wrote: Er....we don't literally interpret the "Old Testament" (it's called the Torah, originally) either (considering it's where the Creation story comes from, and you must be a fucking idiot to think the world is only 6000 years old). And while the Old and New are very different books, Christians study and live by both, I think.

Yes, I know, but in general Jews follow the laws given in the Torah more than Christians do because of Jesus' sacrifice. That was unclear from my post, and I apologise.

At 5/25/07 06:13 PM, fahrenheit wrote: Which is the main argument.

Look, theres no way we can argue this point. Because just because a literal christian doesnt believe in evolution doesnt mean they wont look at facts, theres no way to prove thats right or wrong.

Then we will agree to disagree. Going by both my intuition and my logic, I don't see how not looking at facts in one situation wouldn't imply not looking at facts in another situation.

Its the other way around. Because now candidates change their ideas so they get more votes.

Oh, and I would just like to point this out. Heres a poll taken by CBS in 2005, it shows that "51 percent of Americans say God created humans in their present form, and another three in 10 say that while humans evolved, God guided the process. Just 15 percent say humans evolved, and that God was not involved. "

Yeah, as others have said, I reckon they were just trying to appeal to the uneducated voters. But that, in my opinion, also makes them unideal potential leaders, because that's a bastardised thing to do. I suppose I should expect no different from politicians.

At 5/25/07 07:44 PM, Memorize wrote: You people are fucking idiots!

With all due respect, Memorize, do you have any idea what we're talking about?

Haha, it amazes me how you people fail at simple logic.

Tell me then, why is it called a theory when it's fact?

You are just a troll, aren't you? As I'm sure he made clear, the term "theory" is ambiguous and in terms of science refers to an explanatory model for naturalistic phenomena with a large body of experimental evidence in support of it. It's a bit of a "title of honour" in the natural sciences, rather than a guess or whim as it is in everyday usage.

At 5/25/07 09:47 AM, Memorize wrote: Tell me. Does stupidity run through all of you hypocrites?

Well, there's no need for that. But if you can provide a counterargument to any of my points, I'd be glad to read it.

At 5/24/07 07:42 PM, TheMason wrote: You said the hypothesis is repeatedly tested. You are right and the hypothesis repeatedly fails real life observation.

I beg to differ. There is a multitude of evidence which fits the hypothesis, such as greenhouse gases and global temperature being strongly correlated in the past.

And the reason is in its methodologies:

Computer Simulation
The climate is a super-dynamic system.
Human beings cannot fully comprehend all the sub-processes of this system.
Programmers are human beings.
A computer can only simulate something based upon programmer inputs.
Thus computer simulation cannot reliably predict climate change.

I don't think your deductive reasoning applies. Computer models are programmed to do what humans can't in following the various variables in the system. You might think there's too many variables to follow, and you might be right, but computer models can predict larger-level changes in the climate such as the global temperature rising.

This is why time and again estimates and predictions of what is going to happen with the environment is wrong time and again. Computer models are a very poor substitute for real world observation, and are very unreliable. Thus this method does not really test the hypothesis.

Once again I beg to differ, as you can test the reliability of a computer model in predicting larger level changes in the climate by seeing if they can accurately predict the past, which they can do rather successfully. Source

Think about it, think about the economic impact of a computer model that could accurately predict the weather more than a week out. Big business would be clamoring for it! That information alone would be more valuable than all the profits industry would loose if they went along with people like Al Gore!

Contrary to popular belief, it's much more difficult to predict small changes in the climate than larger changes.

Historical Temperature Measurements

Forgive me if I'm missing your point here, but historical temperature measurements are taken from things like tree rings, not asking people all over the world to measure the temperature each day. Tree rings are a reliable source of monitoring temperature in the past.

Thus when scientists make those nifty little graphs they are correlating two different data sets that have utilizied two very different data collection (measurement) techniques. This is a no no in the world of "hard" science...and would automatically cast doubt upon the scientist's findings. Environmental science is about the ONLY science that a researcher can be so sloppy about the scientific method and still be considered a real scientist!

You'll have to give me a source for this one, but even if that is true, then they're still trying to get the best idea of what's happening that's available and have probably been successful, so I see no point in assuming that they're wrong.

Anyway, I am sorry that I do not have any sources. These are my own thoughts and questions that I have on the subject. At this point I do not care to get into a pissing contest about the results of numerous studies. What I care about right now is the methodology involved in coming to those results, and I have yet to have these fundamental questions answered in such a manner that would allow me to place faith in the conclusions of the "consensus".

Then we have a problem, as I'm no climate scientist and you seem to be a bit more up to speed than I am about this issue. But, I'm willing to debate you, although I reckon you have a bit of an advantage.

I was just trying to make the point that there have been times that there have been consensus (and Global Cooling was more prevelant that what you pointed out) in the past that have been proven to be wrong.

Yes, but as you've said, equipment and methodology have improved greatly since then. Just because the consensus has been wrong in the past, doesn't mean it's necessarily wrong today.

Have you ever heard of the "paradigm effect" or "paradigm paralysis"? Even scientists can fall prey to this and misinterpret data so as to fit it in with a consensus. Just because only a minority thinks a system or theory works or does not work does not mean that the minority is always wrong...

It doesn't make them right, either.

So then...is the current spate of GW hysteria also attributable to media sensationalism?

Yes, but there is also a much larger body of research in favour of global warming than there ever was on global cooling.

But...that is my point! The vast majority of the rabid environmentalists bandy him about as a prophet! Not only is he a politician but he is part of the petroleum industry! The Gore family fortune came from when his old man worked for Occidental Oil!

I haven't watched or read "An Inconvenient Truth" (and to be honest, I don't want to), but from what I've gathered he just wanted to stir people up, and was successful. However, I find him irrelevant to the discussion, unless you want to discuss global warming hysteria rather than the science itself. Yes, he wrongly claimed that the sea level might rise 20 feet or whatever, but the actual consensus of 23 inches is still a significant threat.