Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

---

I agree with James

---

As an atheist, I'm not saying that God(or any other names for it) isn't real, but there's just no proof. Despite that, some people think that religion is a legimate reason to go around and shoot people. That's what I'm really against. Anyway, if you hate atheists, then you're a fag.

---

My opinion: The other religions are false. Not enough proof and whatnot. (And no, the bible isn't 'proof', twas made by men.)

But if there IS a god, I imagine him as a bored omnipotent being who screws with people when he's bored.

---

At 5/23/09 03:13 AM, JackPhantasm wrote: It only needs one sentence.

No... it very clearly doesn't. \/

I think that the belief in a creator versus the the non belief in such a thing is a DIRECT result of evolution and genetics.

That is all. How do you think this is true? That is my question to YOU. I know it is true, otherwise people wouldn't believe, otherwise people wouldn't NOT belief. It all is perfectly clear to me, that's why I find it so hard to explain myself, because I don't feel that it needs explaining.

By your logic... everything I do is a "DIRECT" result of evolution and genetics, because I do it.

Unless ofcourse there's something else you wish to imply or derive from the concept... and oh look...

I feel that it is all PAINFULLY obvious. We are supposed to believe things, and others are supposed to question these beliefs. Religion played its part perfectly in the evolution of of civilized society. Did it not?

I'm sorry... but civilized society is a completely subjective term, and it's especially obvious when you butress it with the idea that evolution makes imperatives out of elements-which-foster-such-a-thing-as-"c ivilized society."

The idea that, just because evolution gave rise to a trait and therefore is imperative to use that trait, is so utterly incomplete as a decision-making-paradigm. It is so incomplete that your use of the word "DIRECT" makes me cringe. If I don't use my thumbs 24/7 it's what... a crime against evolution?

Your point also confuses evolutionary-theory with a much broader general use of the word evolution. Be carfeul of those things, because it does in fact read as though you think evolution justifies subjective pursuit.

Why do you question it now?

As oppose to...?

Why do we even HAVE atheists?

Atheism is a facet of "realism," and the most controversial or affecting, as it calls to question the supposed source of everything within a theist paradigm.

Or do you mean: why, regardless of label, do atheists exist? To save time, I'll answer this too, even if it isn't in keeping with the rest of the paragraph (below) to which the question belongs. The precepts of cognitive development give rise to both atheism and theism. Stricter atheism develops out of a number of variables.

We should just have realists, I feel like the latter describes the former SO MUCH MORE ACCURATELY. I hate that word, atheist, mainly because of the prefix, "a". Not.

Would it offend you if I said you were not a unicorn? Not stupid?

The irony is that, exclusionary prefixes actually place the object in a much larger group.

Then of course, the further irony, is that once context is added beyond the title itself, the group becomes much smaller, and is able to have things attributed to it (like negative connotations).

What a negative thing. Not this, how do you deal with that/ I am "not" not anything, yeah that sounds confusing, but you know it isn't. That's my point, negativity, negative attitudes, that's all I see towards beliefs of the religious.

You're mushing words again. As enjoyable as stream of consciousness may be. It does not make a coherent argument.

A negative attitude is not a negative state of being, and the former is not derived solely from the latter. The latter requires the ego to derive the former.

And there are plenty of negative attitudes towards the beliefs of the secular - yet the theists do not hold an exclusionary title.

Why? Why is that necessary? As I said before they disprove themselves, so your righteous attitudes in my opinion are severely misplaced.

Man. If I had that bullet proof argument under my belt in High School I would have gotten straight A's. A B-!? I disprove myself! Your righteous attitude is severely misplaced! Give me my A now!

Though this makes me curious. When is a righteous attitude not misplaced? When the self rightous person is wrong? When the target is right? When its unclear who is right or wrong?

Where's the curiosity? In the topic itself? in the fact that you're here at all? Perhaps. But am I retarded in failing to see this or is it not there? This is why i pose questions as such.

Catharsis.

What REALLY is an atheist? What REALLY is a state of athiesm? Could it necessarily be a state of no belief at all? A state of nature COMPLETELY? A state that precedes man entirely? I am interested in MUCH FINER things than mere historical connotations,

The general argument is that atheism is a neutral state of things-in-nature (which could collectively be called nature). So yes, atheism precedes man.

The catch is that applied atheism does not precede man...

... and the big catch is that applied atheism does not precede theism, if theism is known-of.

which is why I probably come off as retarded and crazy.

You come off as retarded and crazy because you correlate the "a" in atheism to self-righteous indignation - because you say things like 'your righteousness is misplaced when you're right' - because you use the word "DIRECT" dishonestly as justification - because you mush evolutionary-theory and evolution - because you assume "I think that the belief in a creator versus the the non belief in such a thing is a DIRECT result of evolution and genetics," explicitly implies everything else in this post.

And then when we point these things out you complain that we're not being intellectual enough.

I find it hard to place these thoughts in a rational format, because my frustration with the supposed character of the debaters is inseparable from the core of the actual debate.

I bet you turn green when people make fun of you too.

So as Back said, I will repeat my conclusion.

Hmmm... "I think that the belief in a creator versus the the non belief in such a thing is a DIRECT result of evolution and genetics."

Yeah no... what you write below expands your "conclusion" way beyond what it was at the beginning of this thing.

I feel it is our purpose to disagree on these things,

Evolutionary purpose?

Better yet. You're disagreeing with yourself: As I said before they disprove themselves, so your righteous attitudes in my opinion are severely misplaced.

I feel that it is genetically inevitable that we either believe or disbelieve in a higher power,

Actually... that's a logical inevitability.

Everything either has to be a duck, or not a duck. etc etc

You telling me there's an explicit not-a-duck gene too? Cow? Telephone? That double helix is getting pretty long.

just as some bird have sharp beaks and others curved.

And some birds, when they turn 15, lose their sharp beaks and then grow curved ones. Huh?

I won't deny genetics plays a role, but to treat it like a switch... or something that can't be dealt with on a cognitive level is ludicrous.

Which will survive? Time will tell.

OoooOOoo... mysterious!

ANOTHER question of course is this last statement. Which will survive? Don't you think its possible that the notion of atheism could evolve into a religion itself?

Hooray for mushing words.

In any case. Atheism is a religion to some people already.

---

At 5/20/09 04:49 PM, ReThink wrote:

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

Enough that we should be able to live our lives.

Wait, what? Only "Enough that we should be able to live our lives"? Does that mean you think that other meaning beyond what is "Enough" comes from somewhere other than God?

Name me one scenario that would make you have more than "enough".

Sounds like we can get meaning from somewhere other than God, why can we get all of it from somewhere other than God?

Name one speific way for there to be meaning in your life that has nothing to do with God.

Statement A: God wants me to go over there, therefore I will go over there.
Statement B: I will go over there, therefore I will walk.

In statement B, the end (I well go over there) and the means (I will walk) share an intrinsic relationship, as described*, that exists beyond an individual's subjective wishes. There is an objective need for a mode of transportation, in this case bipedal movement, to get from one location to another.

I like to think that we don't know what God wants us to do, but since he knows everything, he knows what we're going to do, therefore God can not be understood.

Wait...you just said We can say "God did it", but we still would want to find out how and now you say God cannot be understood? Which is it? Can we find out how "God did it" or not?

We're finding out "how", not "why". There's a big difference between how and why. How things happen is through science. Why they happen is unknown.

I thought the workings of God were beyond human understanding? How can it be that we can find out how God does things? Or are we just finding out how things happen... like evolution, because we all know it was God's plan to have species mutate and selctively breed and survive based upon those random mutations. Except that is apparently beyond our understanding.

See above statement.

---

Do me next Ericho!

---

At 5/24/09 06:29 PM, Ericho wrote:

At 5/20/09 04:49 PM, ReThink wrote: Wait, what? Only "Enough that we should be able to live our lives"? Does that mean you think that other meaning beyond what is "Enough" comes from somewhere other than God?

Name me one scenario that would make you have more than "enough".

Here ya go: This morning I biked to work. Why did I do this, what meaning did this have in my life?
It could be that:

I did it to get into shape for my own sense of identity and care for my own body
I did it to avoid driving so I would not waste money on gas or car maintenance, so that I could have more money (wealth)
I did it to avoid driving to reduce the amount of pollutants in the air so that I may have a healthier planet for myself and generations to come
I did it to prove to myself that I can, in order to test my own determination of will thereby knowing myself better
I did it to show off my shiny new bike to my coworkers thereby appealing to my pride and sense of self-worth
I did it because God wanted me to (lol wut?)

Now, these are all reasons that riding my bike to work might be meaningful to me, and to have meaning in my life. If I remove any of these reasons would it change my life in any way? Do I need to have only one purpose to live my life?

And given that I can find meaning in riding my bike for any of these reasons, would having more than one be "more than enough"?

Sounds like we can get meaning from somewhere other than God, why can't we get all of it from somewhere other than God?

Name one speific way for there to be meaning in your life that has nothing to do with God.

How about: self actualization, accomplishment, happiness, love, reproduction, experience, curiosity and knowledge, the advancement of the species, and many more. I don't think any of those require God and would be justification as a reason to live.

On a further point, what do you think "meaning in your life" means? The way I view theistic philosophy (in particular Christianity) is that meaning must come as a final judgement of your life. This seems like a terrible way to live, as your life only gains meaning after you die, so it's like your entire life is just a waiting period for death.

To have the events of your life not have meaning outside God means you need to die for any of it to amount to anything. Which I think is utter bullshit.

Honestly, can you think of anything in life that can only have meaning through God? Everything we do can have meaning to us without the need for a God.

I like to think that we don't know what God wants us to do, but since he knows everything, he knows what we're going to do, therefore God can not be understood.

Wait...you just said We can say "God did it", but we still would want to find out how and now you say God cannot be understood? Which is it? Can we find out how "God did it" or not?

We're finding out "how", not "why". There's a big difference between how and why. How things happen is through science. Why they happen is unknown.

Ok, I'll let you dodge that one, but you walked into another.

You say that why things happen "is unknown" but you also said previously that "God can not be understood". If God cannot be understood does that not make that "why" not just unknown but unknowable? And if so, why do we care what God's reasons are for doing things? The "why" of God being unknowable means that it should be a null point in people's lives.

But then there are people who claim to know what God wants through their readings of the Bible. They claim this to be an accurate account of what God wants, even though they have no reason to believe that He wasn't just fucking with them. Seriously, has no one ever considered that the Bible was just God's way of messing with us? By your own admission "God can not be understood", to say that we have any clue of what God wants or why he does what he does (if He does anything) is contradictory.

---

At 5/24/09 09:34 PM, ReThink wrote: But then there are people who claim to know what God wants through their readings of the Bible. They claim this to be an accurate account of what God wants, even though they have no reason to believe that He wasn't just fucking with them. Seriously, has no one ever considered that the Bible was just God's way of messing with us? By your own admission "God can not be understood", to say that we have any clue of what God wants or why he does what he does (if He does anything) is contradictory.

Also, as I've previously pointed out and any reasonably educated person should know, the Bible is a greatest hits collection. It's what the Romans, whose religion survives as Catholicism voted to be the "official" Word of God. There's still the Apocryphal books floating around that try to fill in gaps, or offer completely different stories and lessons (The Apocalypse of Peter springs immediately to mind). So now you have a situation where what if they voted in the WRONG books. What if it's The Apocalypse of Peter that's really true and Revelations was just written by some nutter in a cave who didn't like the Romans? What if only one of the Gospels is correct? Or none of them are? What if? What if? WHAT IF? So yeah, again, I am willing to entertain that there's possibly a supreme being out there, that maybe there's even somewhere we go after we die (we're all at our base electrical impulses and chemicals right? What if the "soul" is simply these impulses and because energy cannot be created or destroyed, it simply wanders onward to somewhere else?) but I am not partial to the idea that this being is the angry bastard of the Old Testament, or that the New Testament completely got it right either (especially because as I said, it's mostly a "best of" early Christianity and a way to bring a disorganized religion to heel).

Or hey, what if the Buddhists or some other religion are right? Maybe it isn't monotheistic at all, maybe it's somewhat like Terry Pratchett or Neil Gaiman have written about in their fantasy work. It's a bunch of gods who wax and wane in power, who are somewhat distant from humanity but need our belief....and/or when they got it, they just play dice with our lives and think we're something to play with, like toys.

---

The belief in a sentient creator is just a way to fill in the unknowns. We will never know everything. We either accept ignorance or create our own reality.

---

At 5/25/09 02:11 AM, MrFlopz wrote: The belief in a sentient creator is just a way to fill in the unknowns. We will never know everything. We either accept ignorance or create our own reality.

Nah man, we don't create our reality, we create ways to understand reality, reality is as it is n has always been (will always be, maybe)

A creator, the belief obviously came from a being making contant with us at a point in time, either that or mankind has come to realize the sheer genius that it had to have taken to make everything like it is n that a creator is the most logical idea, not a by chance accident or things magicly smashing together n forming life from unlife.

Anyway we accpet our reality n that is why we're alive today, those who don't accept it....well the outcome is evidence that theyre not alive or in the right state of mind (theyre in a mental institution).

I think people like atheists n evolutionist, darwinists, blah blah blah, those were created to fill the void for people who didn't want to accept the obvious path, so to be fair they avoided the nuthouse and are able to live normal lives while obeying the law (with a few exeptions from time to time)

---

At 5/26/09 06:41 AM, Shaggytheclown17 wrote: those were created to fill the void for people who didn't want to accept the obvious path,

Care to elaborate on the 'obvious' part? I can accept the existence of a deity as a valid view, but I can't really see the obvious part of it.

On a side note, do you feel that illnesses and divine will are exchangeable?

---

At 5/26/09 07:04 AM, RubberTrucky wrote:

At 5/26/09 06:41 AM, Shaggytheclown17 wrote: those were created to fill the void for people who didn't want to accept the obvious path,

Care to elaborate on the 'obvious' part? I can accept the existence of a deity as a valid view, but I can't really see the obvious part of it.

Obiousness as you may already know but aren't sure of.....
Lots of people say "look around" thats pretty much what they mean, people talke of the great design or the creatures n things here, evidently it is the obvious path because more people see that than not.
Trying not to get into the complicated parts but a good red flag is when you compare everything in this world, everything we seem to know pretty well (well not everything), compare it to everything we can see outside of our world, you can't help but feel very very small. I think I've already explained it a bit with "dark" matter n "dark" energy, no frigin explanation but we know theyre there right?

Ugh I'm tierd...

On a side note, do you feel that illnesses and divine will are exchangeable?

...uh....wtf do you mean by illnesses?
To avoide a bitchfight I'm going to allow you to explain yourself here.

---

At 5/26/09 07:20 AM, Shaggytheclown17 wrote:

On a side note, do you feel that illnesses and divine will are exchangeable?

...uh....wtf do you mean by illnesses?
To avoide a bitchfight I'm going to allow you to explain yourself here.

The thing is that if you assume that divine will gives more accurate answers then scientific research, then it's not really difficult to find that divine will applies as an answer for most 'weird' occurences in the world. A pretty obvious case is medicine. Going from the scientific point of view illness can't but have a cause, either it be bacteria or genetical defects, or other sources. This of course makes it a tedious task to figure out what causes certain conditiuons, which are left not as uncommonly to hypotheses, rather then decent solutions.
But what if you take away the science and also apply the 'obvious' answer that illnesses are caused by divine will, rather then biological defects. Soi either God punishes you, or makes it a trial of daily life to go through. If he wants you to die, you will, if he wants to have you cured he will cure you if you're faithful enough.

My sister in law, who's spiritual rather then deist, claimed for instance that medical science is a waste of money. She argued that a man can cure himself if he has enough will-power to do so. Maybe this can be translated in religious contexts also.

Personally I believe in medicine of course, but if you accept God as the obcious solution to everything going from divine will to medicine is not so far-fetched.

---

At 5/26/09 06:41 AM, Shaggytheclown17 wrote:

At 5/25/09 02:11 AM, MrFlopz wrote: The belief in a sentient creator is just a way to fill in the unknowns. We will never know everything. We either accept ignorance or create our own reality.

Nah man, we don't create our reality, we create ways to understand reality, reality is as it is n has always been (will always be, maybe)

A creator, the belief obviously came from a being making contant with us at a point in time, either that or mankind has come to realize the sheer genius that it had to have taken to make everything like it is n that a creator is the most logical idea, not a by chance accident or things magicly smashing together n forming life from unlife.

Anyway we accpet our reality n that is why we're alive today, those who don't accept it....well the outcome is evidence that theyre not alive or in the right state of mind (theyre in a mental institution).

I think people like atheists n evolutionist, darwinists, blah blah blah, those were created to fill the void for people who didn't want to accept the obvious path, so to be fair they avoided the nuthouse and are able to live normal lives while obeying the law (with a few exeptions from time to time)

Yeah, OOOOK. The people who use only naturalistic explanations and don't have any gods that they talk to are the loony ones. They're fucking nuts! Not that relgious people are crazy. You just have everything mixed up. You get put in those places for believing in crazy things, not for denying supernatural things. Wow.

---

At 5/26/09 07:49 AM, RubberTrucky wrote:

At 5/26/09 07:20 AM, Shaggytheclown17 wrote:

Personally I believe in medicine of course, but if you accept God as the obcious solution to everything going from divine will to medicine is not so far-fetched.

Oh I see what you mean, no I don't believe that God cures n heals people, but sill I'm open to that possibility though it seems there are more cases of it not happening than so.
Anyway the part about people being able to heal themselves, its pretty much just a matter of wth you want to do n how severe it is, if somone just has a minor case of a headache or other weak illnesses, those can be cured with really simple things and few serious things can be also.
On a related note, remember that one kid who needed kemo n ran away with his mom because they believed in natural remedies, well I don't see how that could be seen as religious, natural remedies are very very common...... (frigin drug companies don't want natural remedies because they lose money on it so its no wonder they make a kind of law that sais only a drug can treat diagnose prevent or cure a disease, which really sucks) From what I've heard kemo er whatever, it kills more people than the actual cancer, but either way its all up to the person.

---

At 5/26/09 06:41 AM, Shaggytheclown17 wrote: Nah man, we don't create our reality, we create ways to understand reality, reality is as it is n has always been (will always be, maybe)

But is not what we create and perceive affecting reality allowing us in some way to if not wholly create reality, affect and ADD a creation reality. Let me try to simplify, look at the automobile for instance, or computers. Things that human being brought into reality, doesn't that in some way give us at the least a co-created by credit when it comes to what is reality? Just throwing that one out there.

A creator, the belief obviously came from a being making contant with us at a point in time, either that or mankind has come to realize the sheer genius that it had to have taken to make everything like it is n that a creator is the most logical idea, not a by chance accident or things magicly smashing together n forming life from unlife.

I don't think it's obvious a creator force contacted us. Especially since there's been no credible evidence that contact took place (do not qoute the bible or any of that, a guy going off alone and saying an invisible voice spoke to him is not credible). I think also there's always the impulse that creates imaginary friends, and hey, it is easy to say that if you look around you at the world, and you have not the tools to really try to figure out how it works (as we didn't for CENTURIES) it's easy enough to say "something smarter then me did it...yep, sounds good...now that we solved that, what's for dinner?". I'm not saying a creator is impossible or doesn't exist. I'm open to the possibility, I'm just saying I think it's extremely presumptuous for you, or anybody else to act like it's just so gosh darn obvious that something MUST BE TRUE without a scrap of real evidence. Especially since you don't seem willing to entertain that you may in fact be incorrect here.

Anyway we accpet our reality n that is why we're alive today, those who don't accept it....well the outcome is evidence that theyre not alive or in the right state of mind (theyre in a mental institution).

Sure, but this does nothing for your argument. People accept that reality is what it is, and if you hear voices, or do anything deviating from the norm we take you out of society. This proves what about the presence of a creator?

I think people like atheists n evolutionist, darwinists, blah blah blah, those were created to fill the void for people who didn't want to accept the obvious path, so to be fair they avoided the nuthouse and are able to live normal lives while obeying the law (with a few exeptions from time to time)

That also makes no sense. Especially since you're "obvious path" HAS NO GODDAMN EVIDENCE!!! Whereas what you deny has tons of such evidence. Oh right, I forgot, it was all faked. Guess we should just go back to the dark ages and believe whatever the church tells us and that a book whose holiness got VOTED ON, has all the answers. Ok.

Hey, you're guys claim to hear the voice of an invisible man and we still leave you out of the nuthouse. See how easy it is to twist that argument completely around? Why do you think such flimsy claims constitute evidence of anything?

---

At 5/27/09 12:54 AM, aviewaskewed wrote:
look at the automobile for instance, or computers. Things that human being brought into reality, doesn't that in some way give us at the least a co-created by credit when it comes to what is reality?

Everything we've ever created could've been created two thousand years ago, we just didn't known likely didn't need that stuff as most of the things we still don't need, things aren't brought to reality, reality is the boundarry and we can only do so much.
Should be give ourselves credit? Not really because we didn't create the building blocks on which all this stuff is possible, we most likely don't even know half of the things that are possible to make.

I don't think it's obvious a creator force contacted us. Especially since there's been no credible evidence that contact took place

The amount of credability things have is your opinion and not mine, obviously you wouldn't say something has credability if you either don't know much about it or strongly disagree with it, so your logic fails to reach anymore ground but your own feelings.

That also makes no sense. Especially since you're "obvious path" HAS NO GODDAMN EVIDENCE!!!

Agai that is your opinion dude, putting in all caps isn't going to push your beliefs anymore effectivly.

Hey, you're guys claim to hear the voice of an invisible man and we still leave you out of the nuthouse.

That lil tidbit has pretty much falsified your entire argument, you obviously have a personal problem with other people's beliefs and this convo will now discontinue.

---

At 5/27/09 01:31 AM, Shaggytheclown17 wrote: Agai that is your opinion dude, putting in all caps isn't going to push your beliefs anymore effectivly.

Sorry to say this, but evidence is not a matter of opinion.

---

At 5/27/09 07:56 AM, AapoJoki wrote:
Sorry to say this, but evidence is not a matter of opinion.

Modulo the fact that you can freely dismiss evidence on personal set of criteria.
If I assume I am logged onto a matrix machine and everything I experience is all a dream then any claim you make about whatever, I can refute by saying that you're only my imagination.

Maybe facts on themselves are true, but whther a fact is evidence or not is entirely personal.

---

At 5/27/09 09:12 AM, RubberTrucky wrote:

Maybe facts on themselves are true, but whther a fact is evidence or not is entirely personal.

Everyone plays by the same rules of what reality is. No one is walking into traffic thinking they'll turn into superman at the last minute.

What a lot of kooks do is try and say that evidence is personnal so they can justify both living in the real world on a day-to-day basis ( using cars, obeying laws, reaping the fruits of science ) and their escapist fantasy of whatever ( crystals, prayer, bigfoot, aliens etc. ).

It's entirely hypocritical. One second, evidence is just personal, but the next it's not. The translation is: evidence is not personal unless it contradicts my beliefs.

---

At 5/27/09 10:58 AM, poxpower wrote:

At 5/27/09 09:12 AM, RubberTrucky wrote:

Maybe facts on themselves are true, but whther a fact is evidence or not is entirely personal.

Everyone plays by the same rules of what reality is. No one is walking into traffic thinking they'll turn into superman at the last minute.

We may all play by the same rules, yet the perceptions of the game are not the same. Under some circumstances, neither are the rules. If Clark Kent walked into traffic, got hit, and didn't flinch.... well, you'd have a problem then.

From wiki:
"The Copenhagen interpretation, due largely to the Danish theoretical physicist Niels Bohr, is the interpretation of quantum mechanics most widely accepted amongst physicists. According to it, the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics predictions cannot be explained in terms of some other deterministic theory, and does not simply reflect our limited knowledge. Quantum mechanics provides probabilistic results because the physical universe is itself probabilistic rather than deterministic."

If it's probable that the fellow getting reamed by traffic will not be superman, great. Can we run every person through the same test?

Who's going to drive the vehicles for the last living people to be tested this way?

What a lot of kooks do is try and say that evidence is personnal so they can justify both living in the real world on a day-to-day basis ( using cars, obeying laws, reaping the fruits of science ) and their escapist fantasy of whatever ( crystals, prayer, bigfoot, aliens etc. ).

When you go to work, you're expected certain things: showing up on time, performing your tasks, adhering to local laws and probably customs as well. When you leave, your mindset is most likely NOT the same, for a few reasons, chief among them being that you aren't being paid to function outside the work environment in the manner you were contracted for. If you're salaried, you still recognize what part of your day is dedicated to the work function and what is considered personal time.

Escapist fantasies provide a balance to the rigors and rigidity of the real world. If you can't recognize this without hurling insults and spewing stupid, then I suppose you got what you wanted.. a negative purview of the world around you.

It's makes you less of a person, I think.

It's entirely hypocritical. One second, evidence is just personal, but the next it's not. The translation is: evidence is not personal unless it contradicts my beliefs.

...and if your beliefs are beneficial to what you suppose life should be..? Then you're doing yourself right, using your own selfish means to achieve your goal of happiness/satisfaction. Is this NOT the rule of nature atheism tacitly acknowledges?

Having it both ways only works if you want it both ways, duh.

---

At 5/24/09 06:33 PM, Bacchanalian wrote: Do me next Ericho!

I don't wanna.

---

At 5/27/09 12:16 PM, Ericho wrote:

At 5/24/09 06:33 PM, Bacchanalian wrote: Do me next Ericho!

I don't wanna.

Come on. It'll be fun. It'll be fun.

You can explain to me how the statements, "I must use my feet because God wills it," and "I must use my hands because God wills it," form a contextual relationship that define foot from hand as distinct from each other - AND...

... since you posit that no other purpose be needed...

Complete the above task without prescribing any ancillary purpose to said feet or hands.

---

At 5/27/09 12:14 PM, Leeloo-Minai wrote:

Who's going to drive the vehicles for the last living people to be tested this way?

What are you talking about?
Did I find a new Jack?
:D

When you go to work, you're expected certain things: showing up on time, performing your tasks, adhering to local laws and probably customs as well.

We're not talking about any of that.

He was saying that what constitutes evidence of certain things is dependent from person to person.

Example: a blurry picture is enough for someone to say bigfoot exists. But what does this mean? Does this mean he's right and I'm right, so we're both right?

No, either bigfoot exists, or he doesn't. Either the blurry picture is bigfoot, or it's not. Generally, you'll hear the claim "it's evidence enough for me" when talking about REALLY REALLY bad evidence.

Stories, legends, shitty pictures/video, dreams, feelings, drug visions. That sort of stuff.

The people who say that this kind of stuff is enough evidence are cheating the rules of the game by making a special case for their beliefs. It wouldn't be enough to give them a shitty picture of OJ raping the president to conclude that OJ raped the president, but in the case of their aliens/miracles/magic spells, ANY evidence is suddenly enough and those who don't agree that it is are just "close-minded" and so on.
Or you'll sometimes here the priceless "fuck you" phrase: "Well I don't need to prove it to you!".

Which translates to: I have nothing and I fucking know it, so leave my dumb ass alone, wah.

Escapist fantasies provide a balance to the rigors and rigidity of the real world.

Yeah go ahead and try to make people who believe in crazy shit admit it's just escapism.

---

At 5/27/09 03:13 PM, poxpower wrote:

At 5/27/09 12:14 PM, Leeloo-Minai wrote:

Who's going to drive the vehicles for the last living people to be tested this way?

What are you talking about?
Did I find a new Jack?

D

Nah, I kind of made a similar point earlier about the 'faith' in the scientific method.
One of the major assumptions is natural induction. So as we observe something happening when a situation presents itself, we assume that the same will happen under the same conditions at any time at any place. So we assume that if you hit a wine glass with a hammer, it will shatter. This seems very logical, but is it?
Because how do you prove it?

Hit a glass with a mallet, there! But what if this glass was an exception? Hit 10000 more glasses. But 1000 glasses are nothing compared to the millions out there. and even if you broke a million, there would still be a large amount more.

So who's to say that you can in fact break all wine glasses with a mallet?

Same goes with the superman car story. How do you prove that everybody will get hurt when they walk in front of a car?

In the end, it's all about accepting natural induction or not. Your prove is not absolute, but is rather based upon what you believe.

So tell me this, how do you prove that natural induction is a fact?

---

At 5/27/09 08:45 PM, RubberTrucky wrote: So tell me this, how do you prove that natural induction is a fact?

This would be the question to ask had Pox said, "no one will survive being hit by a fast moving car."

However...

Pox said, "No one is walking into traffic thinking they'll turn into superman at the last minute."

The issue is not whether natural induction is provable, but rather...

Wishful thinking and stubbornness don't justify belief in an exception to natural induction, particularly when that belief is then applied to a social context, and held as axiomatic within an objective context.

How many Christians do you know that think God is JUST a fantasy?

---

Aahhh shit! Correction:

At 5/27/09 09:24 PM, Bacchanalian wrote: How many Christians do you know that think God is JUST a fantasy?

just THEIR fantasy?

---

At 5/27/09 08:45 PM, RubberTrucky wrote:

In the end, it's all about accepting natural induction or not.

Everyone accepts it.
Everyone.

The only time people reject it is as a crutch to make their beliefs sound more possible.

Look at any creationist and you'll see that they live their entire lives exactly like induction was the way to go, EXCEPT when it comes to their beliefs.

Every day, we make hundreds of assumptions that depend simply on what we're told about what would happen if we did XYZ. And all of science also works exactly on that principle, and it works. Just look at what we know and can build.

What DOESN'T work is to say "well I reject induction so let me see if I can build a plane with my fairy magic".

That doesn't work. Because it's not how reality works. To guess the future based simply on the number of observations we've made in the past is the ONLY way we have to advance as a species and to live day-to-day.

k I think I've run out of ways to explain this :O

---

But pox! Flaws and contradictions add character! They make us more human!

---

:At 5/27/09 01:31 AM, Shaggytheclown17 wrote:

Everything we've ever created could've been created two thousand years ago,

No it couldn't, because we have a pretty good idea that things like cars, computers, cloning, baseball, etc were in use then. Also conditions weren't right for it then, sure some people like Davinci had ideas which would later be reproduced or expounded upon by others. But that comes with better understanding through time. Davinci was brilliant and a futurist, but his brilliance was also constrained by the world around him and what was known and unknown at that time. Don't talk out your ass if you want to be taken seriously.

we just didn't known likely didn't need that stuff as most of the things we still don't need, things aren't brought to reality, reality is the boundarry and we can only do so much.

I still don't get what you're saying. We invent things to make life more convenient, and to make money and drive commerce. It's true we can only do so much, there are things that contravene the laws of "this is just how shit works" (yeah, not technical, I know). Like we can't fly all by ourselves, so we invented something that allows us to do it with assistance. Sure there's an absolute barrier, but I'm saying we have shown an ability as a species to adapt and push against it. Redefine it. Like I said, a hundred years ago, people couldn't conceive of the way we live now, they would have said it's the stuff of science fiction and fantasy. We changed all that and we should damn well be proud of ourselves for being able to improve our quality of life so much. Another example of that is we used to believe the Earth was the center of the solar system and everything revolved around us. Then the theory was proven wrong, oh sure some of the more stubborn elements headed up by the church tried to suppress that notion (rather violently I might add) but eventually enough evidence and facts were gathered to prove that the sun was the center of the solar system and everybody better just learn to add that to their ideas and definitions of reality. Reality can be influenced by perception, and in many ways reality is what a group agrees it to be.

Should be give ourselves credit? Not really because we didn't create the building blocks on which all this stuff is possible, we most likely don't even know half of the things that are possible to make.

We SHOULD give ourselves credit because even though nature gave us the blocks, we shaped them, we had the idea that they could fit together that way. We had the creative impulse and we put our hands and our resources to the idea. It's insane to me you can't grasp something so basic and you want to sell your species so short.

The amount of credability things have is your opinion and not mine, obviously you wouldn't say something has credability if you either don't know much about it or strongly disagree with it, so your logic fails to reach anymore ground but your own feelings.

No, evidence is evidence. Show me CONCRETE proof a creator force has contacted us. This isn't feelings, this is me saying I'm willing to listen to your premise if you can show me something to it. You stated that it was "obvious" as in "it's an obvious fact" that a creator contacted us. I say there's no evidence that has ever been presented to justify what you say. You now say that's my opinion and I'm just ignorant? No sir, that's not how it works. You stated YOUR opinion as FACT and have done nothing to back it up except try (and very pitifully I might add) to make it look like I'm just stating MY opinion as fact and my argument is built on sand. What you just accused ME of, is what you in fact have done. Projection much?

Agai that is your opinion dude, putting in all caps isn't going to push your beliefs anymore effectivly.

I put it in all caps because I wanted to make sure you understood how frustrated your dodgy bullshit is getting, and just so I could be absolutely sure you were paying attention to what I'm saying and you'd hopefully have a good rebuttal. I should know better by now. You ignore and cherry pick through my argument and you never really answered the questions I asked you. You just say that YOUR opinion is "obvious" and I say it is not, please give me a little more and maybe you can convince me that I am in fact wrong, and you are in fact right. Just because the guy in the white collar and the robe says it's so, doesn't make it so. Just because you say I'm stating an opinion when I'm pointing out the fact that you yet again are acting like your opinion, built on evidence that has been repeatedly discredited, poorly thought out, or non-existent, is somehow correct. Somehow this is enough to turn you into the better debater and more intelligent of the two of us in your mind. It must be really fun living in your world.

That lil tidbit has pretty much falsified your entire argument, you obviously have a personal problem with other people's beliefs and this convo will now discontinue.

I do not, I have a problem with close minded assholes who think that they're answer is the only answer. Which is what you've done every time you've ever debated with me or anyone else in a religious thread. I'm totally open to the idea of a creator, but your arguments are just opinions masquerading as fact. But please, feel free not to respond to me, feel free to feel like that means you won this round and you've proven how much better and smarter you are then me. I'm sure we can all use a good laugh in here.

I just want you to address my points, I just want to see some evidence. I'm telling you that I am ready to believe you if you can convince me. But I'm not Fox Mulder, I'm not going to approach this case like I've already decided what the ultimate solution to the mystery is and now I just need to find the evidence that supports my theory and proves me right. It's not logical, it's not scientific. You go for the most plausible, most logical answer first, if something that seems totally out of left field is the answer, then it needs to be justified. Like I said, we used to believe things like the earth as center of the solar system, and the world was flat. Deeply held beliefs, long considered "the truth" and then some guy says "wait a minute, no it's not like that at all!" he proves his point, long held beliefs dismantled as mythology. You're arguing your PERSONAL belief as though it's obvious fact and then you're getting mad because myself and others don't just follow right along and go "oh, of course!". Sorry, some of us like independent thought, some of us just have this weird tendency to be presented with solid evidence something is the truth rather then going "whatever you say boss".

I know, it's just so nuts, how dare I ask anyone ever to justify their argument or help me understand, and maybe agree with their belief system? I really should just follow the leader like good boys and girls do. I'll try to work on that.