Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

And the reason everyone thinks it has no scientific revelation is that all those who interpret it are the religious people who don't have much understanding of science. That french guy has a thorough knowledge of science and Arabic and points out the misinterpretations that people have made.

At 1/12/09 06:24 PM, poxpower wrote: What's the point of covertly being the Devil's advocate? Because then when you say ridiculous shit and go "ha just kidding I was playing the other side for fun" you look like a pussy.

You mean warm, wet, and attractive? WHY THANK YOU.

Like that kid who everyone knows didn't do his homework but who still tries to lie about it in front of the teacher and the entire classroom.

We both know how fucking moot this debate is. Watching atheists and believers fight over religion is like watching fat people fight over candy. Funny, yes, but ultimately just kind of pathetic. As a fat man, though, I still get some jollies from snatching a snickers bar from a little kid.

This helpful remark brought to you by Huggies.
Huggies rule. Get your fucking Huggies RIGHT NOW.

You're getting paid for these ads, aren't you?

At 1/13/09 01:23 AM, Brick-top wrote:

Fail.

This saves time.

So does picking up hookers fresh out of jail... I mean wut?

Ironically if you were just a little more serious and a little better with your posting I would've taken what you said.....well....seriously.

Bullshit. Atheists can NEVER take religions seriously; that's why they're athiest. My ego is not that large that I think I can convert a staunch atheist with a couple posts on NG. That's just a ridiculous line of reasoning.

At 1/13/09 01:37 AM, Bacchanalian wrote: Hatred is a manifestation of frustration. Frustration is the product of cognitive dissonance. Dissonance occurs due to us not having or getting what we desire. We desire affirmation, of which one manifestation is love.

... according to my calculations its the other way around. Can I see your notes?

If this were true, babies would come out of the womb all smiley and happy. They don't. THEY COME OUT ANGRY AND SCREAMING HATE FILLED RAGE. The only goals a baby had is acquiring resources towards itSELF. Greed, greed and hate, these are the first emotions to spark in an infant's tiny brain; all other emotions are derivatives of this.

The Greeks knew that the Earth was round, yes. Do a teensy tiny bit of research yourself. There is no science in the Qu'ran that the Greeks didn't know, honestly.

If the Qu'ran had scientific revelation in they would have at least said the Earth went around the sun. And don't fool yourself that your holy book had scientific revelations, it just repeated facts that wise men knew. Theories of the time, both wrong and right, ended up in the Qu'ran.

http://www.livescience.com/culture/08121 1-islam-evolution.html

oh yeah Islam and Science are ONE AND THE SAME

yes, everything you listed the Greeks knew. And your French fuck isn't even a Muslim, he's just a whore pandering to Muslims who'll buy anything that validates an increasingly-irrelevant holy book.

Ears that is the angriest post I have ever seen you make.

At 1/13/09 11:09 AM, JackPhantasm wrote: Ears that is the angriest post I have ever seen you make.

Sweet delicious hatred brings me joy.

Yeah. I'm not not even putting "...wut?" after that. I'm pretty pro-belief, but even I think the concept of holy writ is the dumbest bullshit on the planet.

At 1/13/09 08:45 AM, 4urentertainment wrote:

At 1/12/09 08:30 AM, Earfetish wrote: Greeks already knew it.

Did they also know that the earth was round

The earth is a globe, and if you look at the bible passage it rather tells us the earth is a flat circle, like a pizza. For someone to be "above" something, there has to be an up and down, and seen from space, earth has no up and down. Also, the bible says that God sets the sky as a tent over earth, and it's quite easier to imagine setting the sky as a tent over a circle (where the circle would make up the floor) than over a globe, especially since as I mentioned above, there would be no "over" and "under".

Do you have anything suggesting that it is a globe, the bible talks about, and not a circle?

At 1/13/09 11:27 AM, Sajberhippien wrote: Do you have anything suggesting that it is a globe, the bible talks about, and not a circle?

Oh wait... Just realized this was about the Quran and not the bible. At that, I can only say BWAHAHAHAHAHA.

At 1/13/09 11:09 AM, JackPhantasm wrote: Ears that is the angriest post I have ever seen you make.

Yes our little boy is becoming a man :D

At 1/13/09 11:09 AM, JackPhantasm wrote: Ears that is the angriest post I have ever seen you make.

It was just succinct.

I can just "LOL" at you. The bible doesn't speak LITERALLY.
And if you read the Bible, and think of it like a cientific book, then you are WRONG.

-_-

At 1/13/09 12:44 PM, thetimeangel wrote: I can just "LOL" at you. The bible doesn't speak LITERALLY.
And if you read the Bible, and think of it like a cientific book, then you are WRONG.

-_-

Really? How about that Jesus Christ fellow? Is his birth/crucifixion/rebirth/whatnot a metaphor, perhaps? Why is Christianity based around a literal interpretation of the Bible, while the rest is just supposed to be metaphors or analogies?

At 1/13/09 03:14 PM, Neptunus wrote: Really? How about that Jesus Christ fellow? Is his birth/crucifixion/rebirth/whatnot a metaphor, perhaps? Why is Christianity based around a literal interpretation of the Bible, while the rest is just supposed to be metaphors or analogies?

Is Jesus only mentioned in Biblical works?

At 1/13/09 12:44 PM, thetimeangel wrote: I can just "LOL" at you. The bible doesn't speak LITERALLY.
And if you read the Bible, and think of it like a cientific book, then you are WRONG.

-_-

Of course you're right, fiction should never be taken literally - let alone seriously. That's the point of all you Christheads: you just don't get the concept of FICTION. Wishful thinking doesn't make things real, not even when you do it with an army of fellow believers behind you. Religion is still the same bullshit it was when only ten people believed in it.

You don't really think this world is ruled by white mice do you? Or have you never read the Hitch-hiker's Guide To The Galaxy?

If Funk is DAGing the theist side, I feel somehow obligated to take the opposite side.

I dunno, maybe I'm just prone to picking fights with self-proclaimed alpha males......

At 1/13/09 03:14 PM, Neptunus wrote:

-_-

Really? How about that Jesus Christ fellow? Is his birth/crucifixion/rebirth/whatnot a metaphor, perhaps?

Considering birth and rebirth have been the standard metaphors for the change of the seasons for nearly 2500 years......YES!

Why is Christianity based around a literal interpretation of the Bible, while the rest is just supposed to be metaphors or analogies?

1.) Christianity isn't based around a literal interpretation. Theoretic impossibility, given there's no literal translation to be had.....and if someone dares defy that one can have a literal translation, I'm game. I need new tango partners anyways.

2.) No need for 2.

That's right kiddies, if you can't get a literal translation, then your argument that it should be taken "literally" fails......HARD......

ergo, any religion professing literalism is inherently false, on basis of their own human imperfections, limiting them from such a divine understanding of the supposed literal text. Proof a religion is bollox using the difference between mortality and divinity as the basis? Damn I'm good.

Ironically, Mormonism tries to avoid this loophole by professing that the book of Mormon was written in a language only the founder of the religion could understand, and that is, might I say conveniently, lost for anyone else to learn.

Granted, this "solution" does them no favors, as the cold reality that a man invented his own language to profess something pretty much destroys the credibility, or makes every 8 year old with an overactive imagination equally prophetic as Joe Smith.

To their further discredit, I think the nomenclature of their Church (LDS) was only used to foster converts from the population of dyslexic drug users.

If anyone gets that crappy joke, I will be thoroughly amazed.

I don't judge someone on their beliefs and I don't try to prove them wrong. I don't mind atheists, but they are always trying to say religion is wrong and stuff. I just want them to leave it alone and stop attacking us. I let them believe what they want and I believe what I want. If I'm wrong big flippidy doo da! It's crap like this that constantly divides humanity rather than unite it.

At 1/13/09 09:40 AM, FUNKbrs wrote: If this were true, babies would come out of the womb all smiley and happy.

No they wouldn't. Being born is probably unpleasant in a bunch of ways.

They don't. THEY COME OUT ANGRY AND SCREAMING HATE FILLED RAGE.

One thing being an extension of another requires more than a sequential relationship. Just because they first feel pain doesn't mean any subsequent feeling is an extension of pain. Or if that is all there is to the "extension" is it really all that meaningful? Yeah. I felt pain first. Is that all you're saying?

Here I thought you were trying to say something to the effect of my love for someone actually being an abstraction of my hate for them.

The only goals a baby had is acquiring resources towards itSELF. Greed, greed and hate

Now add a third element! Dilute the issue some more before we can really discuss it! Show me how wonderfully horrible the world is!

Hopefully I'm not derailing this thread by asking these questions, but here we go:

If God is all powerful and all-knowing, as well as being a kind and loving God, then why wouldn't he just program us to be loving and nice to each other? Hell, while we're at it, why doesn't he just give us a heaven to live in? And even further, why would he create us at all, if the majority of us are just going to end up being tortured in hell?

At 1/13/09 07:35 PM, Rhyfel wrote: If God is all powerful and all-knowing, as well as being a kind and loving God, then why wouldn't he just program us to be loving and nice to each other?

It means more to love out of free will, than to love because there is no alternative.

Anyone who thinks God is kind is either only saying that he has the capacity to be kind, or hasn't read the Bible.

Kindness does not necessarily follow love.

Why would he create us at all, if the majority of us are just going to end up being tortured in hell?

Bigger risk nets bigger rewards - in this case qualitatively. THough, if God knows the future, it's more a challenge than a risk. And what bigger challenge is there for an omnipotent being than creating a system he won't have complete control over.

(None of these are reasons to believe in God. So realize I'm just offering some potential answers, not trying to convince you God is a good idea.)

At 1/13/09 04:54 PM, Imperator wrote:

At 1/13/09 03:14 PM, Neptunus wrote:

Considering birth and rebirth have been the standard metaphors for the change of the seasons for nearly 2500 years......YES!

So "doubting thomas" was a metaphor too?

That's right kiddies, if you can't get a literal translation, then your argument that it should be taken "literally" fails......HARD......

You're being an absolutist. The bible isn't all or nothing; some parts are analogy, other parts are historical. For example, the 'begots' are used to this day as a factual line of lineage for many semitic peoples.

ergo, any religion professing literalism is inherently false, on basis of their own human imperfections, limiting them from such a divine understanding of the supposed literal text. Proof a religion is bollox using the difference between mortality and divinity as the basis? Damn I'm good.

But the bible admits to the fallen nature of man, so the document clearly already KNOWS it's limitations. It's hard to claim a document isn't being truthful when the document itself demands to be "sought out" and "proven" in it's own words!!!

Mormonism

Lawl. you're silly.

If anyone gets that crappy joke, I will be thoroughly amazed.

I've dropped enough "lds" to get the joke.

At 1/13/09 07:31 PM, Bacchanalian wrote:

No they wouldn't. Being born is probably unpleasant in a bunch of ways.

And isn't hatred and aversion a natural reaction to that? Even before the first greedy taste of mother's milk, sapping the life nutrients from the very one who gave them life, comes at the very LEAST pain and hate.

Here I thought you were trying to say something to the effect of my love for someone actually being an abstraction of my hate for them.

Blah. I was getting to it. Eventually. After all, the more you help someone, the more tragic it is when they finally DO die, so to some extent every life affirming act you make is a direct deception; a trap to make the suffering of death that much worse.

Kind of like instead of just not talking to a fat kid, you taunt him with candy for a couple of minutes and then put it away.

Now add a third element! Dilute the issue some more before we can really discuss it! Show me how wonderfully horrible the world is!

Why would I make a quality judgement on our hateful world? Everything is as it should be. Hate rules all, and this is right and just.

At 1/13/09 07:35 PM, Rhyfel wrote:

If God is all powerful and all-knowing, as well as being a kind and loving God, then why wouldn't he just program us to be loving and nice to each other? Hell, while we're at it, why doesn't he just give us a heaven to live in? And even further, why would he create us at all, if the majority of us are just going to end up being tortured in hell?

The old testament God was full of jealousy and hate. Even in the new testament, God murders His own son.

At 1/13/09 09:38 PM, FUNKbrs wrote: And isn't hatred and aversion a natural reaction to that? Even before the first greedy taste of mother's milk, sapping the life nutrients from the very one who gave them life, comes at the very LEAST pain and hate.

You're going to keep pushing the greed thing until I acknowledge it so ok. I'm not sure if you're trying to convince me, but if you look at my user page and listen to what I say about (motivational) dissonance I think it's very clear I hold most if not all action to be selfish.

Aside from that I already said that sequence alone is not enough to call one thing an extension of another. If I open a cabinet, and my mother falls down the stairs... is my mother falling down the stairs an extension of my openning a cabinet? It happened in the same house after all.

Blah. I was getting to it. Eventually. After all, the more you help someone, the more tragic it is when they finally DO die, so to some extent every life affirming act you make is a direct deception; a trap to make the suffering of death that much worse.

This assumes that every time you help them you're thinking about how much more tragic it'll be when they die. However, people generally lack foresight and abound in selfishness. So while it may be a trap THAT makes the suffering of death that much worse, it is not a trap TO make the suffering of death that much worse.

In cases where action is considered life affirming by the person acting, it's done so to lessen the pain of death: detachment through accomplishment. And hey... when it's done right it actually works.

In any case... could you make it more clear what that has to do with "my love for someone actually being an abstraction of my hate for them." Cause I don't see it and I don't want to spend 10 minutes assuming.

Kind of like instead of just not talking to a fat kid, you taunt him with candy for a couple of minutes and then put it away.

It makes sense that you chose an example where the definition of the initial action is defined by a purposefully intended conclusion.

Why would I make a quality judgement on our hateful world?

I'm not going to explain your psychology to you. You'll complain. Instead I'm going to say... you do make quality judgements on our hateful world.

So no. You can't run off on tangents correllated mostly through a tone best characterized by "Sweet delicious hatred brings me joy" in leu of the actual point. And you can't say this course of action is excusable by saying the tangents are immutable truths.

At 1/13/09 08:21 AM, thetimeangel wrote:
Hehehe
Learn history, please.
The roman empire KILLED CHRISTIANS.

Yes.

:Till Constantine, Roman Empire killed christians.

As I said, Constantine is part of the equation.

:Constantine wasn't the first emperor EVER.The other men before him loved killing christians >.< ..

I never denied this.

:And NOW, christians are killed in some countries. And Constantine wasn't THE GUY WHO LIKED TO SPREAD RELIGION.The Roman (Greek) religion wasn't a little different from the Christian. There was a HUGE difference. You say that Constantine just grabbed a paper and wrote : Christians Rulz and then BAM! everyone became christians?. I have bad news for you: The Roman Empire Doesn't Exist Anymore.

But is it not called the Roman Catholic Church for a reason? And if I remember correctly, Catholics make up about 50% of all Christians. My point was, Emperor Constantine had the power and influence of the mightiest empire of his age, even when decimated by splitting apart; he had absolute authority to dictate not only what laws people followed, but what people believed. The Roman pantheon didn't just fall out of existence; it was purposefully replaced by Christianity.

And christians DO. The French Revolution destroyed churchs. But there are christians all over the world
The Comunists didn't tolerate religions. And christians are all over the world. YOU are trying to "kill" christians (not literally). But I still believe.

Since when was I trying to kill the Christian faith? What I said about my own beliefs is I neither accept nor deny the existence of any divine beings. I argue against the teachings of Christianity as a challenge for others to not only affirm their own faith, but try to convince me. My quest is not to enforce my own opinion; it is to seek truth, whatever that truth may be.

And about the God thing, i don't believe in the Genesis like you believe in Science. Almost nothing in the bible is said in a literal form.

Agreed.

You misunderstood the point of what i was saying
Atheists just think in a nonsense live? Because, why to live if you are going to die anyways? And God isn't a blank explanation. I think that Atheism is (don't kill me for this) stupid. Because the man ALWAYS has searched for the TRUTH. And you are saying that there is no Truth? That all we know doesn't matter?. I mean, we want to know where did all this came from.

Not true. Atheists seek truth and purpose to life just as you do. They simply don't believe that it exists in the form of an imperceptible, all-powerful god. And not all atheists believe death is absolute; personally I think reincarnation is very possible, and that our thoughts, memories, and energy carry on in some form after we die. A connection to our past, future and meaning is something which atheists share with the religious.

On the other side, we can't know EVERYTHING. Do you imagine people being as wise as God? knowing EVERYTHING?. I can't.

Neither can I. (Then again, this is why I question the idea of infinite knowledge and wisdom in any form.)

Sorry for my bad grammar, i'm still learning english ^^.

We understand, and you're doing very well.

At 1/13/09 07:35 PM, Rhyfel wrote: Hopefully I'm not derailing this thread by asking these questions, but here we go:

If God is all powerful and all-knowing, as well as being a kind and loving God, then why wouldn't he just program us to be loving and nice to each other? Hell, while we're at it, why doesn't he just give us a heaven to live in? And even further, why would he create us at all, if the majority of us are just going to end up being tortured in hell?

In order: free will; life is an entry exam (see free will); we won't be in hell forever, as per the end of Revelations.

See? I can argue this side too. :)

-----

Now how about this question.

:Genesis 1:26 -- Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, [b] and over all the creatures that move along the ground." 27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. (biblegateway.com)

So if we are made in God's image, and we are imperfect, then is God perfect?

I really don't understand why theists find atheism so hard to understand. Things really don't get much easier. But I guess that's why they have a magic imaginary friend to give them answers.

ZING!

At 1/13/09 09:40 AM, FUNKbrs wrote: Bullshit. Atheists can NEVER take religions seriously; that's why they're athiest.

Fail.

And the irony of you saying you can't take these discussions too seriously is very funny.

At 1/13/09 08:47 AM, 4urentertainment wrote: And the reason everyone thinks it has no scientific revelation is that all those who interpret it are the religious people who don't have much understanding of science.

The biggest problem involving the integration of science and religion is that atheist scientists try and debunk the claims on scientific terms. For example, most Catholics recognize evolution as God's method of bring man into existence. You'd be hard-pressed to get Dawkins to fess up to that.
You know what one argument I'm sick of?
Atheists: God can't exist because of evolution/bigbang/otherphenomena
Atheist: God left fossils/cosmicevidence/otherreasonsforbe liefinphenomena to test our faith.

Most moderate and liberal Christians believe in every process the scientist believes.

Second, it pisses me off that people consider the opposite of atheism to be Christianity. That's always how debates wind up. Buddhism never comes up as the theism atheism is contrary to. It's just aggravating.

At 1/14/09 01:21 AM, AntiangelicAngel wrote: Most moderate and liberal Christians believe in every process the scientist believes.

Also.

However.

I once spoke with an Atheist on youtube who thought all believers of any Religion were young earth creationists. The irony was I showed him the first link and he said it was merely a fake without explaining why. What's even more funny is the video was about scientific evidence and the guy on it admitted being a Catholic many times. Then he showed a clip from Ken Miller about common ancestory and he's a Catholic too.

I was laughing for hours.

i always thought that it was kind of funny that atheists proclaim "i am an atheist. here are my beliefs..." it's like someone coming up to you and saying, "hello, i'm james and i drive a hybrid."

it leaves me with a feeling of "aaand...?" lulz...

At 1/14/09 03:07 AM, qu3muchach0 wrote: it leaves me with a feeling of "aaand...?" lulz...

"this thread is filled with straw man arguments and various other logical fallacies... it's actually kind of fun to watch."

You're right especially when it's referring to you.

At 1/14/09 03:14 AM, Brick-top wrote:

At 1/14/09 03:07 AM, qu3muchach0 wrote: it leaves me with a feeling of "aaand...?" lulz...

"this thread is filled with straw man arguments and various other logical fallacies... it's actually kind of fun to watch."

You're right especially when it's referring to you.

so you're saying that this thread is filled with straw man arguments and various other logical fallacies... AND that i'm fun to watch? that's awsome man! :p