Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 4/20/09 10:22 AM, RubberTrucky wrote:

But I know that when I walked into a church just yesterday, I was in awe of how beautiful it is. Of course, it is not like it proves me there is a God or anything. But it was just marvellous.

My main point is that you shouldn't give credit to the institution of religion for making these amazing things because it's really artisans and artists who did the actual work and they would have done the same job for anyone with the money to pay for it.

It's more of an outrage than anything when you think about it. All that money that could have been sunk into scientific research, squandered on the vanity of the church and the kings.

At 4/20/09 10:33 AM, poxpower wrote:
My main point is that you shouldn't give credit to the institution of religion for making these amazing things because it's really artisans and artists who did the actual work and they would have done the same job for anyone with the money to pay for it.

Oh, is this about respect to the Church alone? I interpreted religion as religion as a whole. Also Christianity and Islam are part of that. Religion, or believing in God made men do their best to please said god. That's why I think religious art is often so elaborate.

But let's just keep it at religion, or faith in God, made men do artistic stuff.

It's more of an outrage than anything when you think about it. All that money that could have been sunk into scientific research, squandered on the vanity of the church and the kings.

Meh, same can be said nowadays. Why do we still throw money at art, religious and non-religious and still fund films, architectural constructions etcetera, where we could spend all that money on research.

In this viewpoint, why do we spend money on science and research, where we could spend the money to helping improving our infrastructure and let the needy be helped (solidarity).

At 4/20/09 10:47 AM, RubberTrucky wrote: In this viewpoint, why do we spend money on science and research, where we could spend the money to helping improving our infrastructure and let the needy be helped (solidarity).

Hahaha, there is NOTHING that will improve the infrastructure and help the needy more than science and research. Without science and research, there would be no modern medicine, no fertilizers, no efficient irrigation systems, no clean water, no contraception, population control etc. If we stopped spending money on science, the death tolls of starvation and illnesses would increase by hundreds of millions.

At 4/20/09 12:57 PM, AapoJoki wrote:
Hahaha, there is NOTHING that will improve the infrastructure and help the needy more than science and research.

You tell me what the LHC and the Big Bang theory are good for.

Without science and research, there would be no modern medicine, no fertilizers, no efficient irrigation systems, no clean water, no contraception, population control etc.

That's the past. You would be foolish to assume that theoretical science these days is still improving the average day life of humans.

Researching alternative energy and medicine, these are valuable.
But shooting stuff at eachother in the LHC is pretty much useless for the purpose of improving global crises. Also, technological science is nifty but unnecessary. At least, I don't really need a TV that is flat and three times as big or a cell phone that can record movies with it. It's cool, but the chances that it can save my life or really make it that much better are rather slim.

At 4/20/09 10:47 AM, RubberTrucky wrote: That's why I think religious art is often so elaborate.

No, it's because they had money.
If your argument was true, then religion would be the only social phenomenon that could make such amazing shit possible regardless of money, but that's clearly not true when you look at the sumptuous palaces that Kings and Sultans bought for themselves.

Money man, all about money.

If you remove the money factor and just look at the kinds of work that people do on their own, for fun, then I doubt you'll find religious people are any more creative or driven than anyone else.

Meh, same can be said nowadays. Why do we still throw money at art, religious and non-religious and still fund films, architectural constructions etcetera, where we could spend all that money on research.

The money we waste today is our own ( mostly). Back then, they would collect donations and taxes from poor peasants to buy THEMSELVES lavish palaces and cathedrals. That's just sick. Not to mention that Jesus always told rich people to fuck off. The catholic church really is one of the most morally bankrupt institutions of all time.

At 4/20/09 04:19 AM, Shaggytheclown17 wrote: Do you have a personal quarrel with people who have dissimilar beliefs than you?

No, I don't have a personal quarrel with other people of differentiating beliefs, I have a quarrel with YOU and it has absolutely nothing to do with your beliefs.

Here is a quote from one of your blog posts:
Atheists are retarded
Just thought I'd let everyone know that, its a fact n there nothing anyone can do about it.
Atheists are filthy and dangerous n they should all be put on an island and left to do what they've always wanted, see who is the fittest in whatever psycotic world they live in.

Here is a comment reply from another blog post:
Nah, I don't insult atheists

Evidently you do yet you deny the accusation. You have a warped sense of what Atheism is and what they think or do, you take people's arguments out of context and if do you this to an argument made by one Atheist you apply it to all Atheists which is not only a logical fallacy but it's also only an anecdotal account, you continuously insult people yet if they do it back somehow that's an attack on your beliefs. You use 'N' to replace the word 'and' and say things like 'lol, 8P, IMAO, XD et' along with poorly used grammar yet have you ever wondered why people don't take you seriously?

Even if you were an Atheist, I'd still have the same disdain for you as I do now because you're an intellectual inferior with a corrupt and insulting mind.

It's more of an outrage than anything when you think about it. All that money that could have been sunk into scientific research, squandered on the vanity of the church and the kings.

Well like some things, time seems to have taken the edge off that insult.
The 7 wonders of the ancient world were built under the same principles.

Some of them overlap on both of those outrages, like the Pyramid and Mausoleum. Both religious and royal vanity at work there.....

I think most people are generally more impressed with the workmanship of these things given their circumstances than the context surrounding their invention.

Sorry for the double post. I forgot to finish my statement.

Your arguments originated from Kent Hovind. He is a convicted criminal and his arguments have been debunked countless times. His PHD isn't legit. He couldn't even give accurate numbers, estimates or statistics for claims he was opposing. In his seminar videos he stated his videos were NOT copyrighted, yet he filed a DMCA against every single person who used his material on youtube. Sounds familiar? The user you're subscribed to Venomfangx also filed DMCA's against other users when governmental law and the youtube guild lines stated his videos are not copyrighted. Then he lied about it to several users yet a Christian user by the name of Togetherforpeace showed a PM stating he was warned they didn't violate any copyright laws. Venom also accused VenomfongX of filing the DMCA's and accused another user by the name of THunderf00t was trying to get money of him.

You do not verify the claims these two people make which is why you said the moon was "moving away from the earth about 4 inches per year" but it's only 1.4 inches per year. Both of these men have no issue with violating the law yet you happily accept every single word they say without question and you distribute what they say. I don't even do this regardless of what Atheist says it, which is why I don't watch (nor do I like) videos by Dawkins.

At 4/20/09 04:19 AM, Shaggytheclown17 wrote: Brick, here is a simple question.

Do you have a personal quarrel with people who have dissimilar beliefs than you?

I think he does to some extent but not to the same level as you. I've seen you post many things before which pose hate towards atheism. Sure it is fine to debate once in a while but to be honest at some point someone has to give up because it is never ending and people like you only fuel the never ending fire by dosing it with hate.

I love a debate but I gave up when Brick-Top accused me of being Homophobic, I knew at that point the argument was no longer based on intellect just stereotypes which proved a lack of knowledge in my faith. And for the record I have no issues with homosexuals, I have many who are my friends and they are good people who will go to heaven if they accepted God because Jesus will forgive them for the reason that they accepted him and the Lord.

I understand why Atheist's are usually smarter because there are people in my faith like you Shaggy. I don't know how you can't understand Evolution, its idiocy not to. Science is great because it helps us achieve knowledge, which in my eyes is a gift from God.

I hate Christian's which give most Christian's a bad name, the ones who try to ban silly things like the "Game of Life" for allowing homosexual marriage, blowing up abortion clinics, the Westborough Church and of course many other retarded statements. And to be honest they only get reported for being shocking and sometimes funny. Sadly an Atheist would usually say this and "This is what all religious people are like" As Brick-Top demonstrated for assuming I'm against Homosexuality.

At 4/20/09 12:57 PM, AapoJoki wrote:

At 4/20/09 10:47 AM, RubberTrucky wrote: In this viewpoint, why do we spend money on science and research, where we could spend the money to helping improving our infrastructure and let the needy be helped (solidarity).

Hahaha, there is NOTHING that will improve the infrastructure and help the needy more than science and research. Without science and research, there would be no modern medicine, no fertilizers, no efficient irrigation systems, no clean water, no contraception, population control etc. If we stopped spending money on science, the death tolls of starvation and illnesses would increase by hundreds of millions.

Then again, if we sunk all our money into research and left nothing for anything else, then we would all be the most educated muck-dwellers in the universe. After all, it takes money to build houses and pave roads.

At 4/20/09 02:31 PM, poxpower wrote:
Money man, all about money.

Without pun intended, I don't buy it. I don't buy it that the sole reason why architects and musician made glorious artwork is because of the dough. If they didn't care for the beauty itself and the well placed symbolism, then the work would have never been so grand. And I'm not talking about cathedrals and the Roman papal residence. I'm also referring to local churches, minor sculptures and the choral tradition.

Uninspired work made only to flaunt money is rather dull.

it's kinda funny, when you think that the catholic church actualy censered some of micheal angelos paintings . ( painting over genital's ect)

At 4/20/09 07:58 PM, RubberTrucky wrote:

then the work would have never been so grand.

So how do you prove that?

Uninspired work made only to flaunt money is rather dull.

Ok so if you say this, then apparently you claim you can differentiate between, say, 10 pieces of art by dividing them into "were made by passion" and "were made just for money".

I'm pretty sure you could win James Randi's million dollars if you passed that kind of test.

At 4/20/09 08:44 PM, poxpower wrote:

At 4/20/09 07:58 PM, RubberTrucky wrote:

then the work would have never been so grand.

So how do you prove that?

Well, can you prove that the artists like Handel, Michaelangelo,... made the work solely for the money and had no religious inspiration?

At 4/20/09 08:44 PM, poxpower wrote: Ok so if you say this, then apparently you claim you can differentiate between, say, 10 pieces of art by dividing them into "were made by passion" and "were made just for money".

I can't do that, I'm not really a connoisseur. But I can make poignant cynical stabs towards the commercialisation nowadays, if you like.

At 4/20/09 08:06 PM, thedo12 wrote: it's kinda funny, when you think that the catholic church actualy censered some of micheal angelos paintings . ( painting over genital's ect)

History is usually not without a certain sense of irony.

Hence why it repeats a fair bit....

I'm sorry, this is the gamers generation:

Hence why it clips into itself a fair bit.....

At 4/20/09 08:49 PM, RubberTrucky wrote:

I can't do that, I'm not really a connoisseur.

So why claim you know?
I know enough to say that loving Jesus doesn't make anyone a better artist. Not that religious people would know anyway.
Take Da Vinci for instance. Made great religious paintings. Was probably not religious, or at any rate, a Christian. He did it for the money. Can you tell? Fuck no. No one can. His Last Supper painting is one of the most blowjobbed works of art in existence.

The same was the case for probably a good deal of master artists, architects, composers etc. etc.

At 4/20/09 02:40 PM, Brick-top wrote:

At 4/20/09 04:19 AM, Shaggytheclown17 wrote: Do you have a personal quarrel with people who have dissimilar beliefs than you?

No, I don't have a personal quarrel with other people of differentiating beliefs, I have a quarrel with YOU and it has absolutely nothing to do with your beliefs.

Well Brick, look at it from my point of view, I've seen several posts accusing religious people of being dangerous, violent and evil, Pox is a prime example of one of those people.
Regarding posts I've made that make fun of your own beliefs, I was retaliating against those people doing the same to other beliefs, but I however have no quarrel with the people.
It is by my understanding that a variation of this belief that people act violently against other beliefs and act as though the world is going to end tomorrow unless somone agrees with them.....

As I've said in the past, it is sad but very common that people would lash out at a belief in which if others don't believe that they will suffer forever when they die, n the chance of that being true is likely what drills into the subconcious of those people which triggers their anger at the people as well as the belief involved.

So Brick, if you really don't have a problem with belief that aren't your own, you will be wise to disregard any insults I may have included in my later posts, I have no problem with you believing in whatever you want but when you bash other's as well as my own, I have very little choice but to act as well as you have.

At 4/20/09 12:57 PM, AapoJoki wrote:
Hahaha, there is NOTHING that will improve the infrastructure and help the needy more than science and research. Without science and research, there would be no modern medicine, no fertilizers, no efficient irrigation systems, no clean water, no contraception, population control etc. If we stopped spending money on science, the death tolls of starvation and illnesses would increase by hundreds of millions.

Aapo, Science is a way of understanding the world we live in.....
Dude, you're implying that atheism is science n that science keeps us all alive though its no more than a simple state of mind and not in any way a physical object or being?

Are you saying that just because people discover shit n give it a name for the sake of calling it something, that the person has the right to tell people that their way of looking at it is in any way the right way n that any other is completely wrong?
I may not know a whole lot but I can assume pretty confidently that science varies pretty differently around the world, fuck I could say an atom is made out of stuff called Chocolate23455, does that make me any more wrong than a person calling them quarks? The shit we're talking about is the exact same yet we may call it by different names n look at it differently, what if I told you that atoms are made of pure energy n that since everything appears to be made of atoms that there has to be one creator of it seeing as complete chaos/randomness would likely end up with things being made up of different things or maybe just nothing which seems impossible but wtf if you're talking about randomness then you better like the impossible.

This is what I've been bitching at people about, atheists themselves have admitted that their belief has nothing to do with science and is no more credable than any other, this bullshit has to end but as I've said before,it'll alot more than a hit to the head with a lead pipe isn't going to fix it.

At 4/21/09 05:15 AM, Shaggytheclown17 wrote: Well Brick, look at it from my point of view, I've seen several posts accusing religious people of being dangerous, violent and evil, Pox is a prime example of one of those people.

So if Pox murdered a Christian that'd give you the right to murder every other living Atheist on the planet?

Of course not and it is your fault you did not take the high road. I have no more respect or admiration for pox as I do you. He isn't getting any special treatment.

However the difference is when you insult Atheists, I focus on you and only you. But if Pox does it, you focus on every Atheist and that is where you're going wrong.

If someone insults anything you're associated with or yourself, take it up with them. Otherwise I'd need to spend the next 10 years insulting Theists because I've heard some very, very nasty things from people of many different Religions.

But I didn't make a post saying Christians were Retarded and neither did Pox.

At 4/20/09 07:13 PM, Pugberto wrote: I love a debate but I gave up when Brick-Top accused me of being Homophobic

Actually I'm accusing you of quote mining, unless you didn't get what I meant which the statement below the link makes the point very clear.

I wasn't accusing you of being homophobic, I was accusing you of not researching your articles before you post them. I barely read any of the homosexual link because I was under the silly assumption you'd know my intentions.

Forgot to add the last part, watching TV while typing.

Shaggy, if you only insult Atheists as either a joke or retaliation, I can do the exact same for you. Which has justified me to insult Christians purely based on what your actions.

People on this site might think that I attack people for being atheists, but I would never do that. They are the ones who started the argument, and I'm merely trying to act as defender. I would never judge someone for their beliefs (or lack of). My goal is that other people should respect all beliefs, as I have tried to. I don't care if you're an atheist, I just don't want you to tear me down because of my beliefs.

At 4/22/09 02:04 PM, Brick-top wrote: Shaggy, if you only insult Atheists as either a joke or retaliation, I can do the exact same for you. Which has justified me to insult Christians purely based on what your actions.

No it doesn't, it just means that you've become the thing you hate. It also means you surrendered the moral high ground. If you stoop to the level of the person you don't like, you become like them. So if you plan on continuing down this road, I'm pretty sure we can get you're name changed to Brick-TopTheClown double quick :)

At 4/23/09 12:40 AM, aviewaskewed wrote: I'm pretty sure we can get you're name changed to Brick-TopTheClown double quick :)

Hmmm....lets see. I spent quite a while trying to simplistically and accurately explain in a post prior to the one and then I said I will perform what I have argued against?

Did that make sense in your head as you were reading it?

Look at it this way.

Shaggy does something and explains why.

I say I can do the same.

I DID NOT say I was going to.

I said I can use the same reason for insulting Christians as he uses for Atheists.

Get it now or should I use more paragraphs?

At 4/23/09 02:40 PM, Brick-top wrote: Hmmm....lets see. I spent quite a while trying to simplistically and accurately explain in a post prior to the one and then I said I will perform what I have argued against?

Wait, what? Was that english? It made sense up to where you had "in a post prior..." then it seemed to go off the rails for me.

Did that make sense in your head as you were reading it?

Obviously no, cause you were all over the place there I think.

Shaggy does something and explains why.

Ok, I'm with you on the understanding train there.

I say I can do the same.

Still with you but I think I see where the misunderstanding is coming in.

I DID NOT say I was going to.

Yeah, I thought it sounded like you said you were going to, especially when you said you felt what he was saying justified you to bash Christians. No it doesn't, nobody elected Shaggy the representative of all Christians, there's misguided folks in ANY large grouping of individuals (be it religious, political, what have you), but I don't think just because a misguided person stands up and proves it allows one to say "ok, now I'm justified in feeling the whole group is a pack of fail" see what I'm saying?

I said I can use the same reason for insulting Christians as he uses for Atheists.

Ok, now I get your point.

Get it now or should I use more paragraphs?

Nah, we're good, wouldn't want your fingers to cramp up or get anymore crazy sentences like that first one. :)

we should now that being the human we respect all the religions

At 4/24/09 04:06 AM, onlineticketspot wrote: we should now that being the human we respect all the religions

You know as much of religion as you do of English. Religions are mutually exclusive, they can't 'respect' each other in a way that a human being might respect another human being. Besides, religion is a fault in mankind, so I'm doing the world a favour in trying to fix it.

You can respect someone who is a paedophile because he probably can't help it and is quite sad; but we can't allow him to actually practice it, in favour of the common good. It is the same for religion, people in it are quite a sorry bunch, but unlike paedophilia religion can be cured. Thus eradicating the world from its negative influence by the root; instead of closeting and isolating the religious person, is a win-win situation - for both the individual and the world at large.

At 4/23/09 02:40 PM, Brick-top wrote: I said I can use the same reason for insulting Christians as he uses for Atheists.

What's the point of saying something like that at all? I know it's a minor issue and you're generally pretty good about this stuff but,

1.) Such a "threat" is good for only one thing, and that's to highlight your own supposed superiority. And it's something you're not gonna follow through anyways, because if I called your bluff on it,

2.) As avie already pointed out, you'd look like a tool doing so. Believe me, there would be nothing more rewarding for your detractors than to watch you sink to their level, and become the thing you hate.

Had I been your opponent, you would have just given me a win-win situation. Either you recant, or you call my bluff and demean yourself. Either way you look bad.

Besides, we've got enough idiot atheists and idiot theists as is. "If I had a nickel" for all the times people whose heads are stuck up their own asses got bitchy over people whose heads are stuck up their own asses......

Between overzealous atheists thinking they're better because of XYZ, and overzealous theists believing they're better because of ABC, I think we've reached our fill here. Shaggy and his atheist equivalent seem to be iconic enough that we don't really need any copycats.

The irony is while each side will mock the other over intelligence, ALL of them are talking straight from their asses, since I've yet to see anyone produce an IQ test to attempt to back up those claims.........chicken shits.......

At 4/24/09 07:03 AM, Diederick wrote: Besides, religion is a fault in mankind, so I'm doing the world a favour in trying to fix it.

Oye.....

You realize such an initial stance like this is a bad way to go about "fixing" the world, right? I mean, forgive my Godwin fault here but......how far away are you from reaching a Final Solution to this problem?

I'm guessing your actual understanding and experience with religion has been.....shall we say not Ph.D worthy, if you don't mind being honest with yourself. This makes your conclusion that religion is a "fault" preconceived. I've had this conversation before:

I think a better idea would be to gain a fuller understanding of the situation. After all, how would you respond to someone who said religion has helpled them? Helped them stay away from drugs, find happiness, fill a void, act as guidance, or what have you?

Would you simply say they are wrong, because religion is a "fault", or call them liars or what?

I'm guessing you'd say "You can get those things elsewhere". Which is another BS answer I hear; Do you know that person? Then you don't know what they can or cannot attain, what is best for them, or anything else. Religions convert because they feel it is best for you. Atheists do the same, without even realizing it.

Don't fall into the trap I see a lot of atheists do, which is come out of one introverted view of the world and fall right into another. Too many people here seem to have that "I used to be religious until I got SMART!" attitude, and develop a completely unhealthy approach to the world and religious people as a result.

Because really, how much of a difference is there between that statement and "I used to be lost until I got SAVED!"?

realistically, there's not much. Presumptions on both ends, and superiority issues all around. One supposes everyone still in the religious category is a moron, the other supposes everyone not in the religious category is a moron. See the difference?

At 4/24/09 08:40 AM, Imperator wrote: Oye.....

I might not have any grade in Theology, but I do think about it, I believe that's worth something. Religion is an unnescary negative influence in this world, which most unfortunate asset is the tendency to multiply itself and spread to other individuals. This is bothersome.

Religion is no more than a placebo with side-effects, people don't really need placebo's to go clean from abusive behaviour (including addiction and compulsions), they just need the motivation coming from it. There are brilliant secular alternatives to religion that can provide for these things, the best would be to completely exclude the placebo part and go right at the heart of it by explaining people why they are caught in this abusive behaviour (dopamine action) and helping them with medicine and counselling. Reality is always better than fiction.

As a Nihilistic Existentialist my personal approach to the world is very profitable to that world. Perhaps more profitable than any religious approach. Religion quite simply belittles the potential of mankind and it's utter nonsense to say religion is a necessity. It has been of great cultural value, but now that we have the ability, we should load in with reality.