Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

i've heard it said that atheist chase after the wind... why do they? is there a kite at the end of their rope? are they chasing the kite? or a leaf? or just... nothing? *bum bum bnnn*

At 1/30/09 11:10 PM, Bacchanalian wrote:

An opinion has a basis too.

Regardless, you cannot impose an opinion as "the good one to have".

You give them authority, therefore they have authority.

Right and if I don't give them authority, then they DON'T have authority. Hence even if God existed, I wouldn't have to respect his authority on morals.

At 1/31/09 12:52 AM, poxpower wrote: Regardless, you cannot impose an opinion as "the good one to have".

Yes you can. Judgement of an opinion is the product of the evaluation - weighing those things that the opinion is based upon, and possibly weighing the opinion's further implications. How much more explicit do I have to get regarding "evaluation"?

Right and if I don't give them authority, then they DON'T have authority. Hence even if God existed, I wouldn't have to respect his authority on morals.

And we're back to defining God as human... again.

At 1/30/09 11:10 PM, Bacchanalian wrote: An opinion has a basis too. You evaluate an opinion by evaluating its basis... the same way you evaluate a belief, or a fact, or any statement.

Sorry, but this is where I have to stop you.
No. No. No. No.
Opinions do not have truth values. They are a statement of belief irrespective of objective reality. No matter what "basis" it was formed upon, an opinion cannot be wrong and cannot be right, it ceases to be an opinion once it becomes contingent on reality (it's a belief then). I suppose you could be of the opinion that opinions can be judged right or wrong, but again, sorry, I hate to disappoint you but modern society's argumentative structure is working with a set of agreed upon rules of semanitcs. Your opinion about what "opinion" means is nice and all, but try to speak the same language as the rest of us.

I think you made up your own dictionary.

Yup.

At 1/31/09 01:28 AM, ReThink wrote: Opinions do not have truth values. They are a statement of belief irrespective of objective reality.

Then there's no such thing as an opinion.

Not true.
What he's trying to say, is that opinions are based on one's perception/view of things.
Hence why opinion is not fact.

At 1/31/09 01:34 AM, Bacchanalian wrote:

At 1/31/09 01:28 AM, ReThink wrote: Opinions do not have truth values. They are a statement of belief irrespective of objective reality.

Then there's no such thing as an opinion.

When you say something like you like a certain artist, that is stating an opinion. This artist is not necessarily any better than another artist, their art just has qualities which appeal to you personally.

This is completely subjective, this is an opinion.

Opinions can be influenced by concrete facts, but they cannot be concrete facts.

At 1/31/09 02:11 AM, ShowXNoXMercy wrote: Hence why opinion is not fact.

At 1/31/09 02:33 AM, Tancrisism wrote: Opinions can be influenced by concrete facts, but they cannot be concrete facts.

And I didn't say opinions were concrete facts. I didn't even say they were facts. I said an opinion can be evaluated by evaluating its basis, the same way you evaluate a fact etc. Perhaps this is where the confusion kicked in. By "the same way" I was isolating the abstract "evaluate it based on its basis," not extrapolating that all over means of evaluation applied to both opinion and fact.

Infact... all the following definitions are compatible with what I'm saying...

Merriam Webster
1. a view, judgment, or appraisal formed in the mind about a particular matter
2a. belief stronger than impression and less strong than positive knowledge
2b. a generally held view
3a. a formal expression of judgment or advice by an expert
3b. the formal expression (as by a judge, court, or referee) of the legal reasons and principles upon which a legal decision is based

Dictionary.com
1. a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.
2. a personal view, attitude, or appraisal.
3. the formal expression of a professional judgment
4. Law. the formal statement by a judge or court of the reasoning and the principles of law used in reaching a decision of a case.
5. a judgment or estimate of a person or thing with respect to character, merit, etc.
6. a favorable estimate; esteem

Oxford
1. your feelings or thoughts about sb/sth, rather than a fact
2. the beliefs or views of a group of people
3. advice from a professional person

Wikipedia
1. a person's ideas and thoughts towards something which it is either impossible to verify the truth of, or the truth of which is thought unimportant to the person.
2. It is an assertion about something especially if that something lies in the future and its truth or falsity cannot be directly established
3. An opinion is not a fact, because opinions are either not falsifiable, or the opinion has not been proven or verified. If it later becomes proven or verified, it is no longer an opinion, but a fact.

Infact... most of these definitions expicitly support opinions-with-respect-or-relation-to-obj ective-reality.

At 1/31/09 02:59 AM, Bacchanalian wrote: not extrapolating that all over means of evaluation applied to both opinion and fact.

shit... all OTHER means... damnit.

At 1/30/09 04:32 PM, Drakim wrote: I guess what bothers me is the number of Christian adults who are still idiots on the level of the atheist teenager. I mean, you have seen creationists on youtube right? Makes me wonder if Creationism prevents people from growing up, like Peter Pan!

Do you not have idiots in Norway or something? Did you not just read what I wrote? Now instead of comparing whose shit is smellier, we're comparing whose shit is bigger. Fantastic.

Skinheads, White supremacists, 9/11 "Truthers", Confederate flag waving rednecks, and the Darwin Awards.

You're bothered by Creationists because you choose to be bothered by them. That's your bias.

You wanna know what bothers me? The fact that atheists can IGNORE all those other idiots and focus solely on the Creationists and cultists. I swear to the Flying Sphaghetti Monster Drakim, sometimes I wonder if you and Poxpower grew up in the same cave.

And the fact that a lot of you people talk about religion and religious texts although I GUARANTEE less than 10% of the atheist population has ever bothered to read 3 fucking chapters of any "holy text"......

At 1/30/09 04:33 PM, poxpower wrote:
Well one side is statistically fuller of morons than the other.
I'll let you guess which one.

That'd be your side genius.
Bible humping Republicans are statistically smarter.

See, I can fuck with the interpretation of stats as well.

In either case, you're lowering the average for whatever side you're on (you talk atheist and act theist, so I dunno what side you're playin), so you should probably stop for the sake of the team.

I'd ask for academic integrity, but I keep forgetting you majored in lethargy and art in college.
.
.
.
.
.
Either way, I like what Stephanos posted. As usual he's dead on accurate.

The chances of an atheist actually knowing WTF he's talking about is.......4% at best.
And that makes you all....not much better than the theists you despise.....

I can do him one better though. He may have more philosophical knowledge on the subject, but I've got a plethora of resources in early Christian history, as well as enough Greek to ACCURATELY understand the original Greek New Testament.

In any case, the fact that you people all post on Newgrounds means one simple fact:
NONE of you are as smart as you say you are. If you were, you wouldn't be posting on Newgrounds, because no one's so stupid as to waste their time over an internet forum arguing to teenagers about the philosophy they never studied.

Speaking of which, I just reminded myself why I stopped checking this shit.....

one opinion is NEVER better than another ( that's why there called opinions! ) and my family is enirely different religions! For instance, my Dad's side is all catholic ( including him ) and my sister is atheist. THEY NEVER ARGUE ABOUT CRAP !!!

At 1/31/09 01:34 AM, Bacchanalian wrote:

At 1/31/09 01:28 AM, ReThink wrote: Opinions do not have truth values. They are a statement of belief irrespective of objective reality.

Then there's no such thing as an opinion.

"A wooden desk looks better than a metal one."

What do you call that? Are you going to dictate which opinion is right?

At 1/31/09 05:30 AM, Imperator wrote:

At 1/30/09 04:32 PM, Drakim wrote: I guess what bothers me is the number of Christian adults who are still idiots on the level of the atheist teenager. I mean, you have seen creationists on youtube right? Makes me wonder if Creationism prevents people from growing up, like Peter Pan!

Do you not have idiots in Norway or something? Did you not just read what I wrote? Now instead of comparing whose shit is smellier, we're comparing whose shit is bigger. Fantastic.

Actually, things are very diffrent in Norway. It's hard to explain, but religious people here have en entirely diffrent mindset. They act more like some sort of spiritual hippies, being overly nice until you feel uncomfortable.

As for atheists in Norway, well, they are almost completely made up of the "who cares" type. I don't know if they argue on the internet on their spare time, but there is at least nothing to reflect this in their everyday life. Whenever there is an argument concerning things that might brush with religion, such as abortion, people don't mix in religion anyway. It's quite strange really.

Skinheads, White supremacists, 9/11 "Truthers", Confederate flag waving rednecks, and the Darwin Awards.

We don't have any of those here. :'(

The craziest group I can think about must be the Jehovah's witnesses, and that's only because they are the only Christian group that bothers to preach their message.

You're bothered by Creationists because you choose to be bothered by them. That's your bias.

Oh, belive me, I'm not like that D:

If I find any atheist on youtube who makes dipshit arguments about something, I'll vote for the lowest score and put a comment explaining his flawed resoning. I don't treat people diffrently like that.

But truly, I have experienced that this is much more common for Creationists. I don't even think it's creationism causing it, rather just reality not matching with creationism, forcing creationists to be desperate.

You wanna know what bothers me? The fact that atheists can IGNORE all those other idiots and focus solely on the Creationists and cultists. I swear to the Flying Sphaghetti Monster Drakim, sometimes I wonder if you and Poxpower grew up in the same cave.

And I used to be praised for posting humbly D':

And the fact that a lot of you people talk about religion and religious texts although I GUARANTEE less than 10% of the atheist population has ever bothered to read 3 fucking chapters of any "holy text"......

I've read the Bible. And the Quran. How does what other atheists do relate to me and my debating? You think I'm trying to be a superhero and save the world? This is really just all for my enjoyment. Is there something so wrong with that? Am I dragging people here and forcing them to argue?

A good question would perhaps be why you keep coming here, if you feel it's such abuse.

At 1/31/09 05:30 AM, Imperator wrote:

NONE of you are as smart as you say you are.

Yes of course, everyone is stupid except the people you agree with.
Like Jackphantasm. hahaha

At 1/31/09 02:29 PM, poxpower wrote: Yes of course, everyone is stupid except the people you agree with.
Like Jackphantasm. hahaha

Good call there numbnuts.
Except for the fact I don't agree with Jack, that would have been a fine and dandy point. I don't respond often to his posts because 1/2 the time I have no fuck clue what he's getting at.

Shows how little you actually pay attention here.....

Oh wait, that's right, you're an artist. My bad, I keep forgetting you live in a sheltered world and lack basic academic scruitiny.

At 1/31/09 11:56 AM, Drakim wrote: Actually, things are very diffrent in Norway. It's hard to explain, but religious people here have en entirely diffrent mindset. They act more like some sort of spiritual hippies, being overly nice until you feel uncomfortable.

As for atheists in Norway, well, they are almost completely made up of the "who cares" type. I don't know if they argue on the internet on their spare time, but there is at least nothing to reflect this in their everyday life. Whenever there is an argument concerning things that might brush with religion, such as abortion, people don't mix in religion anyway. It's quite strange really.

Yeah, the US is a completely different feel. Cultural diversity tends to have that effect though.....

And I used to be praised for posting humbly D':

If Norway's as undiversified as you appear to make it, there might be some truth to the statement.

I've read the Bible. And the Quran. How does what other atheists do relate to me and my debating? You think I'm trying to be a superhero and save the world? This is really just all for my enjoyment. Is there something so wrong with that? Am I dragging people here and forcing them to argue?

Likewise, pointing out the fact that people like Poxpower can't seem to find their dicks from their brains in a religion argument is my mode of entertainment.

As far as how atheists relate to you? Shouldn't it be obvious? For the same reason you dislike religious people always shunning the weirdos who make religion look bad, you should have to hold yourself to the same standard and take some responsibility for the people in your own group.

Otherwise, you give Christians the ability to disassociate from Fred Phelps and all the other nutjobs.

For instance, you should have to take responsiblity for Pox being thicker than reinforced concrete, even though you might have completely opposing debate/cognitive abilities.

Likewise, I shouldn't be able to dissassociate myself from Shaggy just because he makes "my group" look like a bunch of retards.

Heaven forbit I call for a little friggin integrity on some of these debates.....

At 1/31/09 04:17 PM, Imperator wrote:

Likewise, I shouldn't be able to dissassociate myself from Shaggy just because he makes "my group" look like a bunch of retards.

You make yourself look like a moron :O
Just about every time you post you do 3 things:

1- You gloat about how much more brilliant and educated you are than other people

2- You make up straw men arguments like a frickin scarecrow factory

3- You completely misunderstand something really obvious that someone is trying to explain to you.

But the funniest thing really has to be how brilliant you think you are. When I say "I rule" and "I win the universe" I'm obviously joking but you seem convinced that you have some deep insight into our minds and you're just circling us like a pack of wolves around a wounded deer, taking stabs at us for your enjoyment because you're so frickin skilled at debates that we could never lay a hand on you.

It's both frustrating and hilarious. On one hand I know you'd be smart enough to actually argue with, but on the other hand you're so arrogant and seemingly prone to misunderstandings that it becomes really really hard to not want to murder you :O

Haha the BBS soap opera moves on.

At 1/31/09 11:14 AM, hippl5 wrote: "A wooden desk looks better than a metal one."

What do you call that?

An opinion...

Are you going to dictate which opinion is right?

- You only gave me one opinion.
- I don't know much about wood or metal work.
- I don't know much about desk making.
- I don't have the power to dictate otherwise.
- It's hard to judge very vague generalizations, aside from calling a statement out for being such.

I'd say your opinion is probably wrong, unless you've got two specific desks we're comparing?

At 1/30/09 02:44 PM, Bacchanalian wrote:

ok so what your saying is that becuase god created morality everything he dose s inherently moral?

Not quite. There's nothing that necessitates I follow a rule I create for someone else, and it's very obvious God has a different set of moral standards for humans than he does for himself.

"If God decreed so."

If God decrees this or that is moral or immoral. Then it is so.

That's not logical or reasonable in anyway.

If God says killing babys is perfectly fine, then followers will accept that whole heartedly.

That's not right.

At 1/31/09 09:12 PM, Brick-top wrote: That's not logical or reasonable in anyway.

Yes it is. It's just not right...

That's not right.

... if you don't believe in God.

At 1/31/09 09:25 PM, Bacchanalian wrote:

At 1/31/09 09:12 PM, Brick-top wrote: That's not logical or reasonable in anyway.

Yes it is.

Only if you can't think.

That's not right.

... if you don't believe in God.

Any person of any belief can see this as a biblical dctatorship of ignorance.

God:
"I say red is now the color of the panda!

Followers:
"Okay, no problem"

You don't see anything wrong with that?

At 1/31/09 04:17 PM, Imperator wrote: Likewise, pointing out the fact that people like Poxpower can't seem to find their dicks from their brains in a religion argument is my mode of entertainment.

As far as how atheists relate to you? Shouldn't it be obvious? For the same reason you dislike religious people always shunning the weirdos who make religion look bad, you should have to hold yourself to the same standard and take some responsibility for the people in your own group.

Otherwise, you give Christians the ability to disassociate from Fred Phelps and all the other nutjobs.

For instance, you should have to take responsiblity for Pox being thicker than reinforced concrete, even though you might have completely opposing debate/cognitive abilities.

Likewise, I shouldn't be able to dissassociate myself from Shaggy just because he makes "my group" look like a bunch of retards.

Heaven forbit I call for a little friggin integrity on some of these debates.....

But I don't possess any control over Pox. Neither can I say he isn't a "real atheist" or something like that. What would you have me do?

You have to realize that atheist have nothing in common except that they are all not theists. It's like saying all you non-wrestlers should go and stop all the problems you are causing.

But anyway, back to your point. I think you got it all the wrong way. I don't usually get on anybodies back like you seem to think I'm excluding atheists from. Even if Mez posts somebody stupid, I'm not going to rain all over his parade and tell him how stupid he is. I mean, I might make the odd comment, but I've never really been one for the rage posts.

What exactly would you have me do? Tell pox to be more responsible? I mean, if he makes an argument, sure, point me in the right direction and I'll rip the argument to shreds, or reinforce it and build upon it. If it's not that, then I don't know what exactly you are asking.

If you ever feel I've given you a hard time as a theist because of shaggy, then sorry. (but I can't seem to remember that)

There are many misconceptions about theism and the Ibrahimic faiths in particular and you won't find many people on this forum who are able to give proper arguments for and against the topic.

Just for the athiests out there, Christians believe if you live good lives you can go to heaven. Most Christians don't know their own faith well enough and i certainly have much to learn.

At 1/31/09 09:47 PM, Brick-top wrote: Only if you can't think.
You don't see anything wrong with that?

Your analogy is using an objective conflict to challenge the idea of a moral conflict. This is an argument against God. I'm not going there, because my argument very specifically doesn't. Also, we've been over the 'believing in God is stupid' thing enough.

At 1/31/09 10:07 PM, Bacchanalian wrote: Your analogy is using an objective conflict to challenge the idea of a moral conflict. This is an argument against God. I'm not going there, because my argument very specifically doesn't. Also, we've been over the 'believing in God is stupid' thing enough.

I'm not trying to argue against God. I'm arguing people's and Gods morality. And it's a biblical dictatorship.

At 1/31/09 11:07 PM, Brick-top wrote: And it's a biblical dictatorship.

It is.

Yes. It Sucks. Given the belief in God, it's logical.

At 1/31/09 11:15 PM, Bacchanalian wrote:

At 1/31/09 11:07 PM, Brick-top wrote: And it's a biblical dictatorship.

It is.

Yes. It Sucks. Given the belief in God, it's logical.

Hang on, when did dictatorship become logical?

At 1/31/09 11:40 PM, Brick-top wrote: Hang on, when did dictatorship become logical?

One omnipotent being... controlls everything... it would be logical to call that a dictatorship.

UNLESS ofcourse you're arguing that having a dictatorship or choosing to exist under a dictatorship is illogical... which goes right back to 'believing in God is stupid' you're just phrasing it differently by presenting one of the reasons 'believing in God is stupid'. Stop it.

At 2/1/09 12:08 AM, Bacchanalian wrote: One omnipotent being... controlls everything... it would be logical to call that a dictatorship.

That's all I needed to know.

UNLESS ofcourse you're arguing that having a dictatorship or choosing to exist under a dictatorship is illogical... which goes right back to 'believing in God is stupid' you're just phrasing it differently by presenting one of the reasons 'believing in God is stupid'. Stop it.

What the fuck are you talking about? I don't have some hidden agenda to try and disprove God. I don't need to. Nuff said.

At 2/1/09 12:36 AM, Brick-top wrote: What the fuck are you talking about? I don't have some hidden agenda to try and disprove God. I don't need to. Nuff said.

I thought I made it pretty clear. It's pretty simple. It's actually... pretty logical. And I didn't say you were trying to disprove God.

"when did dictatorship become logical?"

You were asking if dictatorship is logical. Not whether it is a dictatorship... or if it's logical to call it a dictatorship.

"You don't see anything wrong with that?"

With reference to an execution of dictatorial power. At this point you had already established that it was a dictatorship we were dealing with, and asked if there was something wrong with that.

These are argument against the concept of a God, against the dictatorship inherent in His definition - which I was clearly and redundantly evoking.

And now... all this time all you wanted was me to say it's a dictatorship? After

"So having tollerence is now evil?"
"You don't see anything wrong with that?"
"That's not right."
"That's not logical or reasonable in anyway."
"dctatorship of ignorance."

all this, you're telling me there's nothing embodied in your evokation of the word dictatorship?

Hopefully you can understand my confusion now.

At 2/1/09 12:59 AM, Bacchanalian wrote: Hopefully you can understand my confusion now.

All I was doing is arguing the morality. That's it. I don't care if God exists or not that's irrelevent. All I want to focus on is the morality of God and I think it's flawed.