Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 5/15/09 03:15 PM, Bacchanalian wrote:

At 5/14/09 02:40 PM, Ericho wrote:

Now that's a contradiction!

I think Ericho said it best himself.

"I tend to think physics are the more important, but I'm not really a science guy."

No divine reason why, just because.

Just because Bacch, just because.

In life, things happen because the laws of physics dictate they should happen that way.

The end.

At 5/15/09 03:22 PM, Brick-top wrote: Just because Bacch, just because.

If I stop posting here, don't worry. I'll've achieved philosophical consistency according to Ericho.

At 5/15/09 03:48 PM, poxpower wrote: In life, things happen because the laws of physics dictate they should happen that way.

The end.

Aw god damnit pox! No one is ever going to pay attention to me if you follow my posts with something like this!

Shaggy's been ignoring me for 3 pages already :(

At 5/15/09 03:55 PM, Bacchanalian wrote:

At 5/15/09 03:22 PM, Brick-top wrote: Just because Bacch, just because.

If I stop posting here, don't worry. I'll've achieved philosophical consistency according to Ericho.

Be like Ericho and argue against everything by saying "just because"

At 5/15/09 03:48 PM, poxpower wrote: In life, things happen because the laws of physics dictate they should happen that way.

The end.

Aw god damnit pox! No one is ever going to pay attention to me if you follow my posts with something like this!

Shaggy's been ignoring me for 3 pages already :(

He's been somewhat ignoring me too. That's probably because his reply rate dramatically dropped when I found out who his sources are and I found his youtube account.

At 5/15/09 04:05 PM, Brick-top wrote: He's been somewhat ignoring me too. That's probably because his reply rate dramatically dropped when I found out who his sources are and I found his youtube account.

No, I think he just gives up. He hasn't replied to me about why he thinks homosexuality is wrong in another thread, maybe because I had qaulified that he can't say God or The Bible, he needed a real actual reason and that defeated him. As soon as you start hitting on stuff Shaggy can't counter, and if he can't find similar minded people to ally himself with, it's game over for him.

Also that post by Ericho was a really bad idea also, and just because some people might agree with it cause on the surface it SOUNDS better then most other arguments for God posited here, doesn't mean it holds up to even a modicum of critical questioning.

At 5/15/09 06:06 PM, aviewaskewed wrote:

At 5/15/09 04:05 PM, Brick-top wrote:

No, I think he just gives up. He hasn't replied to me about why he thinks homosexuality is wrong in another thread, maybe because I had qaulified that he can't say God or The Bible, he needed a real actual reason and that defeated him. As soon as you start hitting on stuff Shaggy can't counter, and if he can't find similar minded people to ally himself with, it's game over for him.

You're absolutely right. His deck of cards seems to have fallen and he's running out or air. All of his arguments he's taken from our two lovely law breaking Creationists have been refuted over and over again.

It's possible he has alt accounts to make it seem like people are agreeing with him or he'll stop using his Shaggy account and switch to something else.

Or perhaps he'll have a mental breakdown.

His stupidity can't last forever.

So I'm watching the history channel right now. They're going a special on Franklin and electricity.

Funny story: Churches used to send people up to the bell tower during thunderstorms to ring with bell. It was believed that the bell would ward off God's anger (lightning). There were quite a few dead bell ringers. Although offered the solution of a lightning rod by Franklin, the church staunchly refused, as it was seen as tampering with the ultimate display of God's wrath.

I wonder how shaggy feels about lightning rods. Considering "that science isn't always accurate and is often changed" I sure hope he finds lightning rods heretical.

At 5/15/09 08:25 PM, Bacchanalian wrote: I wonder how shaggy feels about lightning rods. Considering "that science isn't always accurate and is often changed" I sure hope he finds lightning rods heretical.

It's nice to know the Church aren't a bunch of "flip floppers" when faced with a "better" solution, though obviously it isn't a better solution. Because let's face it, if God didn't want that bell ringer dead, the dude would have lived.

At 5/15/09 08:35 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: It's nice to know the Church aren't a bunch of "flip floppers" when faced with a "better" solution, though obviously it isn't a better solution. Because let's face it, if God didn't want that bell ringer dead, the dude would have lived.

Eh God has his ways. I'm sure all those displaced bell ringers got what was coming to them eventually.

(I think I'm on to something. Death is proof of God!)

***

Hey shaggy, if you've been reading all this, here's a website you can copy from, or link me to, to refute my bit about lightning rods and the church.

At 5/15/09 08:50 PM, Bacchanalian wrote:

Hey shaggy, if you've been reading all this, here's a website you can copy from, or link me to, to refute my bit about lightning rods and the church.

I love how his argument says "that's inspired by paganism, it's not christian" like 50 times when Christianity itself was largely inspired by paganism anyway.

Like the story of a certain Jesus of Nazareth ( a place that's yet to be found ).

But hey, he's right, the bible says nothing about lightning rods!

At 5/15/09 09:48 PM, poxpower wrote: Like the story of a certain Jesus of Nazareth ( a place that's yet to be found ).

ancient peasant villages are easy to find?

At 5/15/09 09:48 PM, poxpower wrote: I love how [. . .]
But hey, he's right, the bible says nothing about lightning rods!

Haha.

I like how, according to the article, we can't fault the church for lightning rods because it was just pandering to the majority of its congregation rather than being open about the truth.

Next we'll see an article about the earth not being flat and it was the Hindu's fault.

At 5/15/09 01:23 PM, poxpower wrote: I really fail to see how religious people can't seem to think one step ahead. Like, you give them ANY REASON for ANYTHING and that's good enough, they never question the reason.
If God wants to make something, they never ask why. They never ask how he does it, who he does it for, why he has to or the meaning behind it. Ever.

Well, I find myself trying to understand God at least. I may never, but I can come up with my own ideas on why things happen, so that makes me think more.

But replace "God" with "ghosts" or "pixies" or "Odin" then suddenly their skepticism flares up. Wow, Odin punished Loki by tying him up at the bottom of the world with a snake? That's so stupid! Why would he do that? That makes no sense!

It's called making exceptions to the rules. It is normally a rule to not believe in supernatural things, but this is an exception. People are told that it's wrong to kill, but if there's an invading country coming, they're going to have to kill. Why are we willing to make an exception to the rules of not killing people but not to believeing in things we can't see?

At 5/15/09 10:33 PM, SolInvictus wrote:

ancient peasant villages are easy to find?

As far as I know, it's the same story as Jesus. Not mentioned outside the bible and supposed to be at a certain spot, but it's not there not matter how much they dig.

So yeah maybe it DID exist but they can't seem to find anything that would indicate it.

At 5/16/09 04:02 AM, Bacchanalian wrote:

I like how, according to the article, we can't fault the church for lightning rods because it was just pandering to the majority of its congregation rather than being open about the truth.

Yeah he's playing the classic "I'm right about Christianity and everyone else is wrong about it" card.
Also he's probably a master of picking and choosing.

Like it's alright to go to war even though Jesus said to love people, but it's not alright to figure that demons cause storms even though the bible said there's devils and evil spirits who stir shit up at random.

That dude would save himself a lot of trouble by adopting a simple book of morals. The three little pigs maybe? That's a good moral: hard work pays off! Or maybe Alladin: sometimes you're so fucking lucky that even your own stupidity can't prevent you from saving the day.

At 5/16/09 11:02 AM, poxpower wrote: As far as I know, it's the same story as Jesus. Not mentioned outside the bible and supposed to be at a certain spot, but it's not there not matter how much they dig.

well supposedly stuff does mention Jesus, but thats not the point. i'm sure the location of Nazareth is ever particularly well described (as in "it should be around here *points in fairly ambiguous direction).

So yeah maybe it DID exist but they can't seem to find anything that would indicate it.

not that i'm trying to defend Biblical descriptions but saying that it should be easy to find a small farming community from the 1st century is fairly disingenuous, even if an specific location was given.

At 5/16/09 10:59 AM, Ericho wrote: Well, I find myself trying to understand God at least. I may never, but I can come up with my own ideas on why things happen, so that makes me think more.

So how do we get from hypothetical-brain-teaser to absolute-truth again?

It's called making exceptions to the rules. It is normally a rule to not believe in supernatural things, but this is an exception. People are told that it's wrong to kill [. . .]

So we should make exceptions... because we make exceptions elsewhere? That still doesn't justify the particular exception: it is ok to believe in God and nothing else supernatural.

For someone who says you can't do something "just because" you sure were quick to essentially say you had every right to make an exception "just because" people make exceptions in general. If anything, the exception should require a much stronger argument than any justification of normal behavior.

At 5/16/09 10:59 AM, Ericho wrote: Well, I find myself trying to understand God at least. I may never, but I can come up with my own ideas on why things happen, so that makes me think more.

It was "Gods will".

That doesn't encourage thinking, that inhibits it. You can easily and happily stick a "It was God" label on everything.

It's called making exceptions to the rules. It is normally a rule to not believe in supernatural things, but this is an exception. People are told that it's wrong to kill, but if there's an invading country coming, they're going to have to kill. Why are we willing to make an exception to the rules of not killing people but not to believeing in things we can't see?

Defence and murder are completely different.

Now let's not forget that there are many people around the world trying to find non-lethal alternatives to firearms.

If you mean "can't see" as in no repeatable, observable, testable, falsifiable evidence then you're right we can't. But it gives absolutely NO justification for accepting and the claim is has no more validity than saying invisible mushroom people make you orgasm in your sleep.

At 5/16/09 01:43 PM, SolInvictus wrote:

not that i'm trying to defend Biblical descriptions but saying that it should be easy to find a small farming community from the 1st century is fairly disingenuous, even if an specific location was given.

Well read up on it yourself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazareth#Di d_Nazareth_exist.3F
GO WIKIPEDIA WOOOO!

At 5/16/09 03:14 PM, Brick-top wrote: If you mean "can't see" as in no repeatable, observable, testable, falsifiable evidence then you're right we can't. But it gives absolutely NO justification for accepting and the claim is has no more validity than saying invisible mushroom people make you orgasm in your sleep.

It's justified because it's a way of finding out the meaning of life. And if there's one thing you can make an exception to, it's finding out the meaning of life. To say that we're all here just because is irrational and makes no sense.

There's a difference between believing in God and believing in things like leprechauns. It's justifiable with God, because hasn't it shown an evolutionary purpose? Don't even think of arguing that it doesn't, because what about homosexuality? That must serve an evolutionary purpose even though it defies the meaning of evolution itself. Religion doesn't, so I think we should let it get its purpose in our lives done. Believing in leprechauns has no evolutionary advantage.

At 5/17/09 02:40 PM, Ericho wrote: It's justified because it's a way of finding out the meaning of life. And if there's one thing you can make an exception to, it's finding out the meaning of life. To say that we're all here just because is irrational and makes no sense.

You've used but haven't defined the term 'just because'. Either you're not the responses or you find them inadequate.

There's a difference between believing in God and believing in things like leprechauns. It's justifiable with God, because hasn't it shown an evolutionary purpose? Don't even think of arguing that it doesn't, because what about homosexuality? That must serve an evolutionary purpose even though it defies the meaning of evolution itself. Religion doesn't, so I think we should let it get its purpose in our lives done. Believing in leprechauns has no evolutionary advantage.

How exactly does Religion and Evolution correlate? Do you have evidence for your statement?

You can't put "god" in every unknown answer box even if it's reassuring.

This is why:

Malaria: God did it.
Cancer: God did it.
Photosynthesis: God did it.
Gravity: God did it.
Pies: God did it.

Using your logic if we put God in any answer without any substantial evidence can do it for everything else. Which means all the wonderful things we know God had total involvement and therefore no need to study it.

At 5/17/09 02:40 PM, Ericho wrote: To say that we're all here just because is irrational and makes no sense.

Forgive the all caps... but Ericho... you keep ignoring me...

WHO IS SAYING THAT WE'RE ALL HERE JUST BECAUSE!?

At 5/17/09 05:52 PM, Brick-top wrote: Using your logic if we put God in any answer without any substantial evidence we can do it for everything else.

Fixed for dramatic effect.

At 5/17/09 06:27 PM, Bacchanalian wrote: WHO IS SAYING THAT WE'RE ALL HERE JUST BECAUSE!?

Because if there's no God, how can life have any meaning? I don't understand it at all!

At 5/18/09 10:23 AM, Ericho wrote:

At 5/17/09 06:27 PM, Bacchanalian wrote: WHO IS SAYING THAT WE'RE ALL HERE JUST BECAUSE!?

Because if there's no God, how can life have any meaning? I don't understand it at all!

Oh now I get it.

God = Emotional crutch.

At 5/17/09 12:20 PM, poxpower wrote:
Well read up on it yourself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazareth#Di d_Nazareth_exist.3F
GO WIKIPEDIA WOOOO!

Using the fact that the bible is wrong to support your atheism is the same as using mcdonalds to support your reasoning for being vegan.

Kind of, sort of. You see what I mean? You're going around spouting off about how god cannot exist BECAUSE of what is said in the bible.

You are doing the same thing as those who use the bible to say the opposite.

Why not have a real argument pox?

For instance light. I say to you, light = god. Now argue with that, instead of arguing about obvious shit.

You atheists might as well call yourselves "people that don't jump off of buildings because we know about gravity."

At 5/18/09 10:23 AM, Ericho wrote:

At 5/17/09 06:27 PM, Bacchanalian wrote: WHO IS SAYING THAT WE'RE ALL HERE JUST BECAUSE!?

Because if there's no God, how can life have any meaning? I don't understand it at all!

If you can derive meaning from God, why can't you derive it from anyone else?

When a kid shows his parents his drawings, is he doing it for Jesus?

Mind you... meaning-as-given-by-another-being isn't the only reason things could happen. This is evident by every relationship between a means and an end other than an ultimate one.

I hate to channel Ayn Rand (I don't really like her) but, meaning is context, and context is defined through relationships. Essentially... everything known is meaningful, because it all in some way establishes a relationship to something else (and eventually the individual).

The issue is... "how much meaning?"

And once you ask that... you HAVE to ask how much meaning there is in a reason that functions as a wild card for all and any situation, like the answer "God did it." Ultimate meaning is paradoxically the least meaningful.

At 5/18/09 01:04 PM, JackPhantasm wrote: For instance light. I say to you, light = god. Now argue with that, instead of arguing about obvious shit.

Light is not supernatural nor is it self aware or created the universe or earth. It may of had part in the creation of life but then that would mean many, many other things are gods too.

At 5/18/09 01:04 PM, JackPhantasm wrote: Using the fact that the bible is wrong to support your atheism is the same as using mcdonalds to support your reasoning for being vegan.

;;;
I use the fallicies & outright fabrications of the bible as a reason to DISBELIEVE in Christianity & Similarly the Koran fits the same reasoning.
Doesn't mean there isn't a 'GOD' !
For me there is no reason to be afraid of the boogeyman & no reason to believe in a bunch of fictional fables.

You are doing the same thing as those who use the bible to say the opposite.

I'm not speaking on Pox's behalf, I just don't believe that 'God' as portrayed in the popular religions of today has anything to do with anything except ,control & power over our fellow man.

For instance light. I say to you, light = god.

This is a good example. Without the Sun we would perish.
So the Sun's light = life for mankind on this planet...doesn't it ?
But do you ever think that its a 'god' like power ? After all the Sun's energy is why we can all survive here !

You atheists might as well

It's not just atheists who don't believe the tired old dogma put forward by those who know no more about god than you or I

personally if there is a flying spagetti monster out there, it sings .

At 5/18/09 01:30 PM, morefngdbs wrote:
But do you ever think that its a 'god' like power ? After all the Sun's energy is why we can all survive here !

Godlike in my opinion is really a matter of perception. In a phrase, I see everything as god like and powerful, and at the same time I see everything as ungodlike because of this.

At 5/18/09 01:19 PM, Brick-top wrote:
Light is not supernatural

Yeah it's just that thing that's fucking faster than EVERYTHING else.

nor is it self aware or created the universe or earth.

last time I checked light is an expression of energy. lol, so do you realize what you just said? and how ridiculous that sounds? Awareness is a contextual word that I really would rather not get into, unless you want to. You of course are speaking in terms of "human" awareness.

Again this is just as farce as using the bible to argue against god.

It may of had part in the creation of life but then that would mean many, many other things are gods too.

Not really. Many many other things are not what light is. At all, please give me some examples that surpass the scientific properties and phenomenon known as light.