Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

I wish people would talk to me as much as they talked to shaggy. That pisses me off. I obviously care about the opinions of others, he doesn't. And yet I am the one who gets cold shouldered every time.

Fuck that.

I'ma comin' jack!

At 5/20/09 10:23 PM, JackPhantasm wrote: I'm completely sure EVERYONE that posts in Poli is not 100% sure of their beliefs.

I would think everyone is not 100% sure of their beliefs.

However, whatever the percent is... it is certainly close enough to 100% in some cases to effectively say, plainly, that a person is sure of their beliefs.

At 5/20/09 11:06 PM, JackPhantasm wrote: I wish people would talk to me as much as they talked to shaggy. That pisses me off. I obviously care about the opinions of others, he doesn't. And yet I am the one who gets cold shouldered every time.

Fuck that.

Nobody likes a whiner, seriously, and all you've been doing your last couple of posts has been whining that the other kids in the yard don't want to play with you (and supplying pretty compelling evidence of why they might not wanna), while you still have a shred of dignity or credibility left, I'd ask you to stop.

Bach: Speaking from my own personal perspective I don't really feel what Shaggy did there is trolling, what it is is further proof of what myself and others have said: Shaggy is fundamentally incapable of arguing with people like yourself or Brick who consistently wreck his arguments and work from a level of thought he seems incapable, or unwilling to go to. So he tries to pick "easier" targets to beat, but as has been pointed out even at that his arguments fail. I don't think he's a troll as much as he's just another unjustifiably arrogant wanker on the internet who is so secure in his beliefs and his moral "rightness" even though he's been proven many times to be outright wrong, and to get his information or views from disreputable folks.

Also Shaggy, I'd still like to hear your response sometime about why homosexuality is wrong and MUST be overcome in that other thread. A reason that isn't a bullshit cop out of "Cause God Hates Queers".

last couple = 2

how many posts have I made beyond that? Many. I did not do this out of the fuckin blue. How dare you act like that.

You act like this is a coherent thread. Its not whining, I feel its necessary to tell you fuckers that I am not bullshitting with the stuff I say, because that's how it is recieved, as bullshit.

My thoughts that I have come to form about life, that I have developed during my ENTIRE lifespan.

I think I deserve two posts to bitch about that. Because it's fucking disrespectful.

On my point, the initiation of this deviation, is that all of the religion threads on this poli board are a god damn mess. Make a new one, I guess I will. But I am afraid it will get locked, I am afraid it will be ignored.

I am afraid it will be a waste of my time. <--- hey there's a note I could hit on for why atheists are atheists maybe?

How do you think fear plays in to atheistic values? Does it do so at all? I think the concept in this thread that once again, atheism is a state of nature. I asked this question before to another person, it may have been you.

What is that state of nature? How can a person come from the state of nature and go to civilization WITHOUT religion?

Since fire man has worshipped. Don't deny it. Its intrinsic, how do you separate something like that? Is that the point of this thread? What's the point?

What's the fucking point of this thread?

Please. Tell me. And I promise I will participate and align my thoughts more accurately!

I would think everyone is not 100% sure of their beliefs.

However, whatever the percent is... it is certainly close enough to 100% in some cases to effectively say, plainly, that a person is sure of their beliefs.

Are they actually sure, or do they believe they're sure :P

How oftenn do you think the latter fools the former and vice versa?

At 5/20/09 11:06 PM, JackPhantasm wrote: I wish people would talk to me as much as they talked to shaggy. That pisses me off. I obviously care about the opinions of others, he doesn't. And yet I am the one who gets cold shouldered every time.

Fuck that.

It's because Shaggy's posts are merely stupid, while yours are often nigh-incomprehensible.

At 5/21/09 02:25 AM, JackPhantasm wrote: last couple = 2

Try verging on the tip of half a dozen and nobody responds to you because you're either bitching or what you say it utter gibberish.

Do you remember this?

"Did you guys notice that Jack doesn't really read what you write?
He like.... glides though it, pick out maybe 2-3 words and calls that word "God" randomly.

So far god is vibrations, black holes, light, evil, humans, love, everything, nothing...
Every thread he's something else."

At 5/20/09 11:11 PM, Bacchanalian wrote:

At 5/20/09 10:23 PM, JackPhantasm wrote: I'm completely sure EVERYONE that posts in Poli is not 100% sure of their beliefs.

I would think everyone is not 100% sure of their beliefs.

However, whatever the percent is... it is certainly close enough to 100% in some cases to effectively say, plainly, that a person is sure of their beliefs.

;;;; I am sure enough in what I believe to say its 100%.
I do not believe in God as put forward by the various religous groups. Not at all . so this belief =100%
I do not believe anyone has a clear understranding of god & human relationship. so again belief =100%

I believe there is still a possiblity of a universal omniputent force . 100% sure it is possible
l believe that even if an omniputent power created this universe, that doesn't mean that force has control over this creation or is a part of this reality. very strongly believe this to be possible.
I believe 100% that since this Universe exists, that other Universes can also exist.
I believe those who put themselves & their religious beliefs to be the ONLY TRUTH about God that should be contemplated or observed ,to be hopelessly deluded. this belief 100%

I also believe we at this stage do not know enough to be able to attempt an understanding of how the universe as we know it functions. But we certainly are learning more & more about less & less. While we slowly move forward in attempts to map the Universe as it contiues to expand.
Perhaps this will give us better insight into the unknown in future.
Work on the sub atomic stuctures is progressing, seeing as this is the building blocks for everything we know of in our preceived environment (Universe) including ourselves. I feel this to be as important , as attempting to understand the Universes immensity as well.

I believe I don't know everything & I never will . this belief 100%
Because of these beliefs I cannot call myself an 'Atheist'

At 5/20/09 09:23 PM, Bacchanalian wrote:

At 5/20/09 11:16 AM, Ericho wrote: Because God is the Ultimate Power and nothing surpasses God.

Are you telling me meaning cannot be derived from anything other than an ultimate power?

No, because that's the ultimate power.

In a way, yes, if indirectly.

Elaborate please.

I don't know how to. God knows and I'll probably never know while alive and I don't claim to, showing my humbleness.

If the objective is to "live our lives" you're going to need a whole lot more meaning and purpose than an ultimate one.

An ultimate purpose is not enough meaning and purpose for you? What do you want?

Let me make it more explicit...

"We can say "God did it", but we still would want to find out how. [. . .] God can not be understood."

My argument stands because "God cannot be understood" despite whatever hopeful wishes you have of having a clue someday. He's still a wild card, no matter how much you wish He wasn't.

So he's a wild card, but he still has relevance in our lives. See below.

All the above aside... would you actually like to address my central argument?

Because all of our relationships with one another did not have much purpose, as we're small in such a vast Universe. Finding purpose with other people is fine, but finding purpose (even if it isn't much) would make more sense.

At 5/21/09 07:57 AM, Elfer wrote:

At 5/20/09 11:06 PM, JackPhantasm wrote: I wish people would talk to me as much as they talked to shaggy. That pisses me off. I obviously care about the opinions of others, he doesn't. And yet I am the one who gets cold shouldered every time.

Fuck that.

It's because Shaggy's posts are merely stupid, while yours are often nigh-incomprehensible.

haha I was going to say the exact same thing :D

Shaggy is just plain wrong, but Jack's plain crazy.

At 5/21/09 12:45 PM, poxpower wrote: haha I was going to say the exact same thing :D

Shaggy is just plain wrong, but Jack's plain crazy.

Shaggy is the former and the latter.

At 5/21/09 02:25 AM, JackPhantasm wrote:
What is that state of nature? How can a person come from the state of nature and go to civilization WITHOUT religion?

The question at retort is: why does a man worship things anyhow? Religion is an intrinsic instinct and that doesn't prove it has to be true. But I've already posted it earlier, religion is something which in its purpose is equivalent to science. It is man's need to comprehend life, it's man's mission to know what results in him being here.
In that respect, religion and atheism are equivalent life styles. In the end, we get born, we live and we die. everything that happens to us is in itself meaningless. so no matter how we fill in the blanks, cosmological, everything is as much a lie as it is a truth.

At 5/21/09 11:38 AM, Ericho wrote: No, because that's the ultimate power.

Define a word, any word, and you'll be explicitly contradicting what you just said.

I don't know how to.

Let me try a different question. Where did the idea* come from? I mean, if you can't even begin to qualify "in a way" or "indirectly" how do you even know enough to say that much?

*Idea: A child that shows his parents his drawing is, in a way, indirectly, doing it for Jesus.

God knows and I'll probably never know while alive and I don't claim to, showing my humbleness.

"We can say "God did it", but we still would want to find out how."

It would seem the desire to know isn't really doing much in this life.

If the objective is to "live our lives" you're going to need a whole lot more meaning and purpose than an ultimate one.

An ultimate purpose is not enough meaning and purpose for you? What do you want?

Oh let's see...
- purpose of my feet
- purpose of my eyes
- purpose of my hands
- purpose of my legs
- purpose of a door
- purpose of a car
- purpose of a bed
- purpose of a chair
- purpose of depth perception
etc etc etc

"God did it" addresses none of these purposes in any way that defines each item.

So he's a wild card, but he still has relevance in our lives. See below.

Actually... see above (as to why a wild card holds less meaning relative to more explicit concepts).

What has more meaning? Bird or Aix galericulata?

Because all of our relationships with one another did not have much purpose, as we're small in such a vast Universe. Finding purpose with other people is fine, but finding purpose (even if it isn't much) would make more sense.

Could you rewrite this in English please?

At 5/20/09 10:14 PM, AndrewGlisson13 wrote: No, they can't.

i'm an atheist, and i agree with Shaggy.

At 5/21/09 01:47 PM, SolInvictus wrote:

At 5/20/09 10:14 PM, AndrewGlisson13 wrote: No, they can't.

i'm an atheist, and i agree with Shaggy.

I'm Elfer, and I approve this message.

At 5/19/09 09:25 PM, AndrewGlisson13 wrote:

Proof: http://exchristian.net/exchristian/2007/
02/logical-proof-that-god-doesnt-exist.h tml

That web page disproves prayer.

http://choosedoubt.blogspot.com/2007/07/
logical-disproof-of-god-aka-god-is.html

The comments following the argument by the author bring up interesting points against it.

You didn't prove or disprove anything that pertaisn to God with these links.

At 5/21/09 01:28 PM, RubberTrucky wrote:

The question at retort is: why does a man worship things anyhow? Religion is an intrinsic instinct and that doesn't prove it has to be true. But I've already posted it earlier, religion is something which in its purpose is equivalent to science. It is man's need to comprehend life, it's man's mission to know what results in him being here.
In that respect, religion and atheism are equivalent life styles. In the end, we get born, we live and we die. everything that happens to us is in itself meaningless. so no matter how we fill in the blanks, cosmological, everything is as much a lie as it is a truth.

It really is telling of you guys that you IGNORE my actual contribution in that post and instead respond to my whining. RubberTrucky did not.

Yes but we have to define differences in order to function. Humans are point to point creatures (not visually, like most small animals such as birds, etc), but mentally.

I think someone said that before, maybe even in this thread. One point is the source, your object of thought, the other point is YOUR thought. I think religion is a classic case of how dangerous thoughts can be once they become objects.

- hey brick, "every time its something else," hey, look, another way my behavior reflects religion

Maybe that's one of my points that I don't like to SPELL out for you guys. Religion is JUST as adaptable as science, really. It wouldn't be around still if it wasn't.

rubber- the inception of man is an interesting one in the light of this topic?

were their atheistic cavemen?

I pose this question to all of you. And please don't say, "there's no way to know for sure."

Unless I asked it before. I may recall. (I'm crazy remember)

Neanderthals, and I assume cavemen as well, often buried their dead, etc Their religious views, if any, were most likely paganistic, worshipping of the earth. Clear physical objects, no doubt. But where their mental objects as well?

What would the morals of a caveman be? What would it have to or not have to do with their religious beliefs?

Do you think atheism as it is today is a result of information (science), or duration (religion has been fucking with us for a while.)

At 5/21/09 04:45 PM, JackPhantasm wrote:
Yes but we have to define differences in order to function. Humans are point to point creatures (not visually, like most small animals such as birds, etc), but mentally.

What do you mean by 'point to point' creatures? (I can't really understand the argument)

At 5/21/09 05:03 PM, RubberTrucky wrote:

What do you mean by 'point to point' creatures? (I can't really understand the argument)

We use information, points, to understand the objects around us. That object can only be recognized when we have the points, visually, this is easy, just use your eyes. But to understand other, purposeful things, about the object, you need other points of reference?

Is that more clear? I kind of made that up but I think its true. We store data from past objects and bring it up again when confronted with similar objects or thoughts. Point to point.

I think points to object and points to thoughts makes more sense maybe? How we define things using multiple sources of information.

I think its a valuable concept to understand, if we can break down the human mind to the point (ha) where we can see the interaction between these thoughts, neurons, whatever you want to call them. You could understand why people do ANYTHING. Especially as far as beliefs are concerned.

I mean, because its a funny thing, you really CAN'T be sure of what someone believes.

At 5/21/09 05:01 PM, JackPhantasm wrote:

were their atheistic cavemen?

Probably, since humans are descended from apes, so depending on what you consider a caveman, there's sure to be a point where they're way too stupid to even think of asking who made the clouds and why all their tiny ape family died of an overdose of lion claws in their face.

In short: yes, unless you admit something about as smart as a chimp can believe in God.

At 5/21/09 06:01 PM, poxpower wrote:

At 5/21/09 05:01 PM, JackPhantasm wrote:

In short: yes, unless you admit something about as smart as a chimp can believe in God.

But by the time that the apes had evolved into somthing that could be regarded as 'human', then they would start having beliefs about things.

Simple things like fire being mystical and lightning meaning the skys angry or somthing, but beliefs that would evolve and form the basis of the many religions that came later.

At 5/21/09 06:04 PM, SonicSheep wrote: Simple things like fire being mystical and lightning meaning the skys angry or somthing, but beliefs that would evolve and form the basis of the many religions that came later.

there was likely still some delay between seeing these things and simply going "holy crap!" as opposed to "holy crap! the sky is f***ing pissed again!".

At 5/21/09 05:01 PM, JackPhantasm wrote: - hey brick, "every time its something else," hey, look, another way my behavior reflects religion

Maybe that's one of my points that I don't like to SPELL out for you guys. Religion is JUST as adaptable as science, really. It wouldn't be around still if it wasn't.

Do you see how what you did here was take what he said and run it in a completely different direction? If you didn't do that on purpose, then the irony is mind-boggling.

boggle boggle

The pure incoherency of Jack's posts is astonishing.

At 5/22/09 02:46 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: The pure incoherency of Jack's posts is astonishing.

I hereby open a contest to see who can make the best Jack post :o

behold, my entry:

"Light moves in all directions, right? Like time, another dimension and so who's to say that it's not the same for all the dimensions? By that I mean, why can't we perceive God if it isn't possible to move from place to place in our minds?
ANSWER ME THAT! "

Dot.

At 5/22/09 12:40 PM, Leeloo-Minai wrote: Dot.

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

At 5/22/09 11:29 AM, poxpower wrote: "Light moves in all directions, right? Like time, another dimension and so who's to say that it's not the same for all the dimensions? By that I mean, why can't we perceive God if it isn't possible to move from place to place in our minds?
ANSWER ME THAT! "

I'll have a swing in your contest.

Humans are made up of various chemicals, muscle tissue, bones etc. We have charted not only a map of the body but our genome too. I hereby state God is the wishy washy chemicals in our body because Einstein has already prove time, the universe, dimensions don't exist. We're actually hooked up to big machines like in the Matrix or that stargate episode.

I know it's crap but my original idea's are far too silly for the forums.

At 5/22/09 07:11 PM, LaForge wrote: Some people simply like the idea that they control their own lives. =0.

In before Shaggy...

... God gave us free will. [Lots of junk about how atheists make crap arguments, are stupid, and miserable.]

At 5/22/09 07:53 PM, LaForge wrote: Thanks for not putting forth any effort, you're just making it more clear how little you understand anything.

This is what happens when YOU aren't paying attention to, what was that number you qouted again? Oh yes "40 odd pages" or else you'd know he was not serious in what he said and was making a joke about a crappy debater that tends to hang around this thread. Basic understanding of who's arguing what around here keeps you from looking foolish.