Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

*unnecessary

Furthermore, there is a significant between the two statements you pose; one is right and the other is wrong. You are stunning me with the notion that choosing non-Theism is equally presumptuous as choosing Theism. There is a difference between reality and fiction, you know.

At 4/20/09 09:56 PM, poxpower wrote:
I know enough to say that loving Jesus doesn't make anyone a better artist. Not that religious people would know anyway.

I generally think that people make better progress if they have a high goal. If I asked you to program something for a big project, or you just have to program something for yourself, doesn't that make a difference?
Suppose a scientist would ask you to simulate a code for calculating which reactions would occur if 2 kaonic hydrogen atoms combined with another mesonic oxygen atom, wouldn't that be motivating and inspiring more then if you were to write a program for a grad student to calculate roots of a quadratic equation?

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.

I'm not sure about this one, he did it for art's sake I guess. His motivation did lie elsewhere, granted.

His Last Supper painting is one of the most blowjobbed works of art in existence.

His Last supper was a revolution in technique, I thought. But then again, I find Einstein's relativity the most blowjobbed theory in existence.

I'd like to thank you in advance for allowing me to literally copypaste a lot of the material from my previous post. Makes it easier on me! :)

At 4/24/09 10:31 AM, Diederick wrote:
I might not have any grade in Theology, but I do think about it, I believe that's worth something.

And what level of "worth" do you think your thoughts on religion have?
How would they compare to say......a religious person's thoughts on religion?

I think about theoretical physics occasionally, most often when I'm watching "The Universe" segments on the History Channel, but I don't necessarily rate them very high......

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.

Repeat:
"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?"

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.

Repeat:
"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."

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.

As a nihilistic existentialist I'm rather surprised to hear you talking about the "potential of mankind" at all.....

Otherwise, I kinda called it with the whole 'Introverted view of the world" thing, didn't I?

Furthermore, there is a significant between the two statements you pose; one is right and the other is wrong. You are stunning me with the notion that choosing non-Theism is equally presumptuous as choosing Theism. There is a difference between reality and fiction, you know.

Probably should have added this one in, but I figured you wouldn't actually try to find the difference. Oh well on me.....

So you know for a fact that people who say they were saved by their religion are lying?

By some of the characters I've seen here, I'd wager choosing non-Theism is MORE presumptuous than choosing Theism. I'm more apt to hear "I'm smarter than you because I'm atheist" than anything. As if somehow the conversion or discovery of atheism adds 30 to one's IQ......

Besides, I'm not quite sure authenticity has a bearing on presumption. Either way, the statement holds that the other is worse off. All you're doing is really CONFIRMING my conclusion by stating "The difference is when atheists say it, it's true".....

But I'll take your comments in stride, Mr. Nihil Exist.
Try not to cut yourself in the meantime!!

At 4/24/09 11:06 AM, RubberTrucky wrote:

I generally think that people make better progress if they have a high goal.

There's no way you could test that with religion vs some other goal.

His Last supper was a revolution in technique, I thought.

No, not really.
Let me explain how the world of art works: whenever something becomes popular, people start writing books about that thing to explain how it's genius.

At 4/24/09 12:55 PM, poxpower wrote:

At 4/24/09 11:06 AM, RubberTrucky wrote:

I generally think that people make better progress if they have a high goal.

There's no way you could test that with religion vs some other goal.

There is, although it doesn't use scientific equipment and conveniently I couldn't reproduce it on the spot. But I could go out to people who accomplish stuff or create stuff and ask how they were motivated. Especially in Christian environments. Things like writers and artists and stuff.
If they say that working for God was inspirational, then I would say that religion really advances the inspiration. Of course, you will say that that doesn't mean that they couldn't have achieved it without religious motivation and that the 'evidence' means nothing. But I would keep believing that having a goal in mind, really improves performance.

Let me explain how the world of art works: whenever something becomes popular, people start writing books about that thing to explain how it's genius.

Hmm, maybe so, people fantasise theories over things when people spit at something. it's human nature.
Maybe art never evolved, really and people just pulled 'techniques' out of their ass and others mindlessly copied them in the hopes of becoming as great as them.

At 4/24/09 12:39 AM, aviewaskewed wrote: Wait, what? Was that english?

Not really.

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

Swelling on the ring finger from a hard smack to the knuckle.

At 4/24/09 08:16 AM, Imperator wrote:

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?

To show coupled with his grammatically and factually erroneous statements his reasoning for insulting Atheists is not only flawed but gives me the justification to insult Christians but whenever someone does even if they used his logic it'd be an 'attack on Religion'.

All my intentions were, all I was doing was showing his justification was flawed. I did not protest any other actions and I'm quite alarmed people would completely ignore my prior post and go after the one which basically said "Using your logic I can do it too"

@ Imperator.

Hah, I'm more Existentialist than Nihilist, so there's no need to be surprised about any positive approach to mankind.

Calling the notion that religious positive influence can be replaced with secular alternatives a "BS reply" doesn't make it less valuable. It is actually a key point, because it makes religion useless. So what do you think there is about religion that couldn't possibly be replaced with non-religious alternatives? And don't say "Faith", I mean positive things. I'll make a start:

moral guidance - altruism, law, common sense
love, comfort and an all-hearing ear - cuddly toy
an afterlife in either hell or heaven - you're here, you're queer, get used to it
meaning and purpose of life - existentialism
creation - abiogenesis, physical cosmology, evolution
being babied around - embracing adulthood when you've passed 40
cultural value - post-DarkAge art
the heritage of our founding fathers - who were actually not so hard on religion

At 4/26/09 08:56 AM, Diederick wrote:
Calling the notion that religious positive influence can be replaced with secular alternatives a "BS reply" doesn't make it less valuable. It is actually a key point, because it makes religion useless. So what do you think there is about religion that couldn't possibly be replaced with non-religious

It's not because there are many alternatives to get your vitamin C intake, that eating oranges is useless.

At 4/26/09 08:56 AM, Diederick wrote: @ Imperator.

Hah, I'm more Existentialist than Nihilist, so there's no need to be surprised about any positive approach to mankind.

Calling the notion that religious positive influence can be replaced with secular alternatives a "BS reply" doesn't make it less valuable. It is actually a key point, because it makes religion useless. So what do you think there is about religion that couldn't possibly be replaced with non-religious alternatives? And don't say "Faith", I mean positive things. I'll make a start:

You miss the point.
It's not that the idea of having alternatives is BS, it's the idea that you think you know what's best for them is BS.

You cannot on one hand criticize religion for thinking they know what's best for people and trying to convert them to that, and then on the other hand talk about what's best for people and try to convert them to that.....

The reason religion converts people is because they believe they know what's best for you, and believe religion to be necessary for your life. You "need" to be saved, you "need" Jesus, you "need" to pray to god, and all that other crap.

It's BS. You would agree with me here.

But I get the feeling what you're trying to do is sell me the alternatives. And really, this is no different than a Jehova's Witness trying to convince me I "need" Jesus. You're just taking an opposite stance, but you're still trying to sell me your worldview.

What's BS about it is you don't know these people, so how can you have any idea what's best for them? Because it works for YOU? Maybe I'm misreading a little, but I think ultimately you can present the alternatives, but you cannot assume what people need and don't need. That decision ultimately has to come from them, does it not? Otherwise, how are you any different from the religious nuts telling me I need saving? All you're doing is telling me I "need" the opposite.

Hopefully you see what I'm getting at.
It's not the notion of alternatives I find distasteful, it's the presumption you know what will work for me.

You know, I've always viewed religious conversion as selling a particular world view. What I don't like about it is the assumption that everyone NEEDS that world view, or even that it's good for them.

And one of the biggest issues I have with atheists is they do the SAME THING; the assumption everyone NEEDS that world view, and that it's good for them.

So I ask the same question......for the 3rd time:

What do you say to the person who says religion has helped them through drug abuse, depression, etc etc.

How can you say the alternatives will be better for them? You don't know them.

At 4/24/09 01:37 PM, RubberTrucky wrote:

But I would keep believing that having a goal in mind, really improves performance.

Well duh, but my point is that religion offers no special inventive and doesn't make people perform any better. Than any other goal.
I bet you that the people who make deals with Jesus have just the same instance of weight loss as those who want to look like Angelina Jolie.

Taking data from the renaissance and middle ages is just crap since:

1- everyone was expected to be religious, so you couldn't compare them with non-religious people
2- They were paid a shit ton of money to make their art

Maybe art never evolved, really and people just pulled 'techniques' out of their ass and others mindlessly copied them in the hopes of becoming as great as them.

Do you know how many books exist about Garfield and TinTin?
TOO MANY. WAY TOO MANY.

At 4/26/09 02:45 PM, pyromaniac616 wrote:

Maybe. Maybe not. You would need to survey everyone in the world to prove that conclusivly, but on whole I agree with you.

So you'd have to get some kind of experiment where you have results you can actually compare which is why it makes it even more annoying that people say religion inspired classic composers and artists so some amazing holy level.... that's just an opinion anyway.

I think Alice Cooper made way better music than Chopin. Prove me wrong. ( good luck ).

But yeah, let's try and find things we can compare. Do people succeed more in business when they are inspired by God? Do they win more medals? Do they train harder?
How does it manifest today in a way we can test?

Cause it's really taking the easy road to day "oh well 500 years ago, this amazing thing that was created by a christian surely couldn't have happened without divine inspiration".

There's no way anyone could ever know that.

At 4/26/09 02:26 PM, Imperator wrote: So I ask the same question......for the 3rd time:

What do you say to the person who says religion has helped them through drug abuse, depression, etc etc.

How can you say the alternatives will be better for them? You don't know them.

I'd tell them I am glad that they got better, but that it is time to stop taking the medicine.

I don't know about you, but I have witnessed some negative sides of religion. A placebo should not have negative sides, it's not supposed to do anything but make the patient feel like he is being cured. The fact that religion, apart from its surreal positives, has a negative influence should be enough to look for alternatives. Reality-based philosophy looks like that alternative.

The only issue with Existentialism, for example, is that it is a bit harder to understand than the plain punishment & reward policy of God. Lack of intellect is in the way of this progress.

I'm sorry if I seem arrogant, but unlike religious pushy people, the thing I push is actually real. What's wrong with waking people up when it's time for breakfast?

At 4/24/09 12:55 PM, poxpower wrote: Let me explain how the world of art works: whenever something becomes popular, people start writing books about that thing to explain how it's genius.

Nah, you're right. Art as a general concept is useless and doesn't say anything. Art is something that happens individually. It's a hobby thing to keep you busy.

All the money paid in aesthetics, fiction books, films and music is all just wasted money, money better spent in scientific research.

At 4/27/09 11:06 AM, Diederick wrote: I'm sorry if I seem arrogant, but unlike religious pushy people, the thing I push is actually real. What's wrong with waking people up when it's time for breakfast?

;;;
What's wrong with it, is simply people don't want to 'wake up'.
Most people & when your speaking of the religious believers...all of them, don't want any more than, to be told what to do . So they can be 'happy' by doing it.

They don't want to have to think for themselves...that 's scarey.
By being a part of a religion they have their happy, shiney, belief's all ready to care for them & when they die...they're going straight to heaven...because after all, they did eveything they were 'suppose to' & heaven is their reward.

The biggest problems on this planet are caused by religious people attempting to promote their particular belief system on those around them. The reason that religions continue,is simply that so many refuse to question what they are taught, & completely refuse to think for themselves & or recognise anything outside of their religious doctrine could possibly be true, & they have been fooled.
No one likes to find out that they are, or have been a fool !

I`m christian. I accept everyone in the world and I don`t need to make everyone believe that my religion is the only right religion. I accpet scientific theories and I think that religion isn`t about believing in God but I think it`s about being good to other people...It`s only my opinion.

At 5/1/09 10:32 AM, Mar666 wrote: I`m christian. I accept everyone in the world and I don`t need to make everyone believe that my religion is the only right religion. I accpet scientific theories and I think that religion isn`t about believing in God but I think it`s about being good to other people...

;;;
Which is fine for you, obviously your comfortable with your belief .

It`s only my opinion.

Do you ever take a look at other people's opinions or ideas that attempt to show you exactly why they do not believe in your religious beliefs as well ?
Like this place
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/

I didn`t say that I`m right, but why do you want to make me stop believing in God? You don`t have to believe, but you must accept the idea that if everyone was good to others then our world would be better place to live.

At 5/1/09 10:45 AM, morefngdbs wrote: Like this place
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/

This is why Atheists are fucking idiots.

That site is parallel to zeitgeist. Full of the most inaccurate "facts" ever, there only to give weight to a highly politicized inaccurate point.

For ex.)

Nazareth not existing?
Archaeologists disagree.

There are sites that offer differing points of view using legitimate arguments.

The site you offered is NOT one of them.

At 4/27/09 11:06 AM, Diederick wrote:

I'd tell them I am glad that they got better, but that it is time to stop taking the medicine.

Am I talking to Dr. Diederick?

I don't know about you, but I have witnessed some negative sides of religion. A placebo should not have negative sides, it's not supposed to do anything but make the patient feel like he is being cured. The fact that religion, apart from its surreal positives, has a negative influence should be enough to look for alternatives. Reality-based philosophy looks like that alternative.

simple answer to that:
Religion=/= Placebo.

The last sentence is important though:
Beause it shows that personal perspective on it.

You've had a bad experience, therefore you look for alternatives.

But you make the assumption everyone else has the same experiences.

The only issue with Existentialism, for example, is that it is a bit harder to understand than the plain punishment & reward policy of God. Lack of intellect is in the way of this progress.

Yes. Theists are theists because they're dumber than you.
I'm calling that bluff. Start showing me some IQ test scores.

I'm sorry if I seem arrogant, but unlike religious pushy people, the thing I push is actually real. What's wrong with waking people up when it's time for breakfast?

Yah, problem is religious people believe God is real. So who's right? You're parroting them with your alternatives. And if you were really looking for alternatives that are "reality-based" you would know reality is dependent on perspective. That's why no 2 eyewitnesses ever agree, that's why memories change over time, etc.

But if you're honest about alternatives, try Absolute Relativism and come back to me.

At 5/1/09 10:32 AM, Mar666 wrote: I`m christian. I accept everyone in the world and I don`t need to make everyone believe that my religion is the only right religion. I accpet scientific theories and I think that religion isn`t about believing in God but I think it`s about being good to other people...It`s only my opinion.

Me too. God bless you, sir!

At 5/1/09 01:46 PM, Imperator wrote:

At 5/1/09 10:45 AM, morefngdbs wrote: Like this place
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/

This is why Atheists are fucking idiots.

;;;While you are not ...right !

That site is parallel to zeitgeist. Full of the most inaccurate "facts" ever, there only to give weight to a highly politicized inaccurate point.

;;;;everything is a NWO conspiracey bullshit with you dude...you really need to get out more.
The radio show that that site links too is pretty interesting.

Nazareth not existing?
Archaeologists disagree.

Yeah it existed as a graveyard...not as projected in the bible. Archaeologists rarely agree with others views ...they all want their view to be mainstream & one only needs to look at any subjective archaeologist site & you get more than one view.
If that's somehow my fault ,in your opinion...I'm OK with that.
I hold your opinion to be somewhere on the scale which requires magnification to actually see.

There are sites that offer differing points of view using legitimate arguments.

The site you offered is NOT one of them.

This site has links etc. to the fallicy of Christianity...the plagerism of earlier religion's dogma & in some cases exactly transfered. Like virgin birth, son of god etc.

But I offered it up to point out the extremists views on Christianity... like Ken Humphrey's .

Which by the way has fuck all to do with atheism...just because someone doesn't believe in Jesus or the Christian god...it doesn't automatically make them an atheist.

At 5/2/09 11:22 AM, morefngdbs wrote:

At 5/1/09 01:46 PM, Imperator wrote:

At 5/1/09 10:45 AM, morefngdbs wrote: Like this place
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/

This is why Atheists are fucking idiots.

;;;While you are not ...right !

I'll agree with you here. Generalizations and ad hominem are why the running disagreements between theists and atheists tend to dissolve into epic trollfests.

That site is parallel to zeitgeist. Full of the most inaccurate "facts" ever, there only to give weight to a highly politicized inaccurate point.

;;;;everything is a NWO conspiracey bullshit with you dude...you really need to get out more.
The radio show that that site links too is pretty interesting.

...except that he's mostly right with this assertion. The website you provided was more about talking points for vitriolic Athiest diatribes than a genuine discussion about belief. It was pretty obvious that the authors were having a difficult time taking their own emotions out of the equation.

Nazareth not existing?
Archaeologists disagree.

Yeah it existed as a graveyard...not as projected in the bible. Archaeologists rarely agree with others views ...they all want their view to be mainstream & one only needs to look at any subjective archaeologist site & you get more than one view.

[citation needed]

There are sites that offer differing points of view using legitimate arguments.

The site you offered is NOT one of them.

This site has links etc. to the fallicy of Christianity...the plagerism of earlier religion's dogma & in some cases exactly transfered. Like virgin birth, son of god etc.

But I offered it up to point out the extremists views on Christianity... like Ken Humphrey's .

Right, because we all know that focusing on the extremists of any ideology gives a clear, unbiased picture of the ideology as a whole, amirite?

At 5/2/09 01:45 PM, dySWN wrote: Right, because we all know that focusing on the extremists of any ideology gives a clear, unbiased picture of the ideology as a whole, amirite?

;;;
Seeing as who I posted the response & link to is a person of Christian upbringing & belief. (Which in my opinion ) is extreme in the sense he was born into it & would probably be exactly the same belief wise if he was born into say a Muslim family.

So posting a link to a site where extreme disenters of Christianity voice their opinions I thought was agood place to start. If you go to any site 'Pro' or 'Against' any religion you will find those who will "spin" what few facts are available to be infavour of their particular view.

Look at the Atheist Ken Humphreys , here's a guy who went looking for proof of their actually being a person named Jesus that fits the historical picture portrayed by Christianity ... & he couldn't find him !
Yet when confronted ( by Jesus believers) that anyone from the past could be not found with any real proof, he went & researched Julius Ceasar... & he found all kinds of proof , from historical writings, coins with his image, statues etc... But when looking for Jesus, someone who IMO should be of parimount importance because of the claims made about him by Christians . There is so little its like he never existed... which begs the answer to the question, the little we know of Jesus that is supported by others of his time whos works have survived . Jesus may have lived. But there is no proof of any of his so called miracles & if one was making themselves known (like John the Baptist) there should have been a hell of a lot more proof of the claims made about Jesus...Which is why I believe the story about Jesus as told by Christianity is Fiction.

At 5/2/09 01:45 PM, dySWN wrote:

Right, because we all know that focusing on the extremists of any ideology gives a clear, unbiased picture of the ideology as a whole, amirite?

250 years ago, it was the norm to have slaves.
40 years ago, it was the norm for Mormons to be racist.
2000 years ago, it was the norm to stone people

What's really an extremist? Someone who doesn't act like the majority?

I love this way of thinking btw. Every time you see a behavior you don't like, you chalk it up to extremists. Nevermind the fact that most Christians are probably uneducated dimwits, you'll say I pick on the extreme tards when I say Kent Hovind is actually representative of a large chunk of biblical litteralists.

Doesn't matter to you that the south is deeply racist either. No, they're just extremists. Not matter how many millions of them exist, they're all extremist.

Basically anyone who doesn't act like you is an extremist.

Nevermind the fact that they can show you straight in the bible why they can or can't do certain things. YOu don't care. You probably eat meat on Fridays and think that people who do give a shit about that completely arbitrary rule are "extremists".
You probably don't pray every night, confess every week or Go to church every Sunday. Wow I bet the people who do are "extremists" too.

arrrr

The center vs fringe argument is complete bullshit. That's what Allister McGrath loves to tout because he's a little sissy who can't even follow his own fucking religion properly so he makes up excuses as to why he doesn't have to believe this or that or as to why he can ignore whatever rules he wants in the book.

Not to mention that every last Christian I've ever met has a different understand of the bible. Where the hell does extremism begins when no one even agrees on the standard interpretation?

At 5/2/09 02:58 PM, poxpower wrote:

At 5/2/09 01:45 PM, dySWN wrote:

Right, because we all know that focusing on the extremists of any ideology gives a clear, unbiased picture of the ideology as a whole, amirite?

250 years ago, it was the norm to have slaves.
40 years ago, it was the norm for Mormons to be racist.
2000 years ago, it was the norm to stone people

What's really an extremist? Someone who doesn't act like the majority?

I love this way of thinking btw. Every time you see a behavior you don't like, you chalk it up to extremists.

Considering that the guy that I was talking to (who was arguing from your side, BTW) brought up extremism first, I would have to say that it's only appropriate to respond in kind - especially since, had I not responded in kind, people would be perfectly justified in accusing me of avoiding the issue.

The most ironic part about the whole thing is that you're the one to bring this up, when arguably vocal anti-theists like yourself fall on what most folks would consider the "extreme" end of atheism in public discourse.

Since the rest of your post pretty much branches out from here, I'll just leave it at that.

At 5/2/09 03:14 PM, dySWN wrote:

Considering that the guy that I was talking to (who was arguing from your side, BTW) brought up extremism first, I would have to say that it's only appropriate to respond in kind

You do realize none of this refutes any of my points, right?

At 5/2/09 03:26 PM, poxpower wrote:

At 5/2/09 03:14 PM, dySWN wrote:

Considering that the guy that I was talking to (who was arguing from your side, BTW) brought up extremism first, I would have to say that it's only appropriate to respond in kind

You do realize none of this refutes any of my points, right?

Yours never refuted mine. What's your point?

At 5/2/09 05:22 PM, dySWN wrote:

Yours never refuted mine. What's your point?

Wow great defence there.
"nu-huh".

I wrote an entire giant post explaining why the "center vs fringe" argument is crap.
Yeah just pretend it's not there.

At 5/2/09 11:00 PM, poxpower wrote:

At 5/2/09 05:22 PM, dySWN wrote:

Yours never refuted mine. What's your point?

Wow great defence there.
"nu-huh".

I wrote an entire giant post explaining why the "center vs fringe" argument is crap.
Yeah just pretend it's not there.

Yeah. Of course, it's too bad that the lynch-pin of the post was the a premise that, as I mentioned, didn't really even refute what it was responding to.

Also, trolls trolling trolls trolling trolls.

At 5/1/09 01:35 PM, Mar666 wrote: I didn`t say that I`m right, but why do you want to make me stop believing in God? You don`t have to believe, but you must accept the idea that if everyone was good to others then our world would be better place to live.

This is a good question. What motivates me to relief people from supernaturalism back into reality, is the desire to do good. Which obviously doesn't come from a religious motivation. I think (read: I don't believe, I KNOW) it is better for someone to face reality and base their lifestyle on that, than to lose oneself to a placebo, which has more side-effects than I like.

Not that all religion is equally bad, it's just that they're not the best a person can do. So I'm really just trying to help - I'm not looking for an ego-boost scavenging for converts, I'm being a good citizen.